Search a substantial collection of case-specific reasoning, then narrow it by petition, field, legal issue, or date.
This expanded collection favors source-backed access over perfect automated classification. Fields, labels, summaries, and relevance may contain errors; records marked ‘broader context’ need extra care. Review the cited source before relying on any record. These appeals and motions do not show approval odds or denial rates, and are not legal advice or a prediction.
NIWten years experienceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
at least ten years of full-time experience
Why the evidence was persuasive
A letter from the Petitioner's former employer confirmed full-time work coordinating environmental programs from 2004 to 2015, satisfying the ten-year full-time experience criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
A letter from the Petitioner's former employer confirmed full-time work coordinating environmental programs from 2004 to 2015, satisfying the ten-year full-time experience criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-12_01_B5203; source_row=23700 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not establish that it was his own work on display; by his own description, it was the models' work being displayed. His comparable evidence argument also failed because he did not show why he could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not establish that it was his own work on display; by his own description, it was the models' work being displayed. His comparable evidence argument also failed because he did not show why he could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=23695 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters of reference lacked specificity about how the Petitioner's contributions were of major significance to the field as a whole; the charter-related evidence did not establish the Petitioner's direct role in its creation or success, and the record lacked evidence of the charter's impact on the modeling field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letters of reference lacked specificity about how the Petitioner's contributions were of major significance to the field as a whole; the charter-related evidence did not establish the Petitioner's direct role in its creation or success, and the record lacked evidence of the charter's impact on the modeling field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=23694 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record did not support the Director's finding. The letters lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, the organizational structure evidence was absent, evidence of distinguished reputation was self-promotional or insufficient, and the booking document lacked key contextual information.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record did not support the Director's finding. The letters lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, the organizational structure evidence was absent, evidence of distinguished reputation was self-promotional or insufficient, and the booking document lacked key contextual information.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=23696 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted materials did not constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The MTV episode was not about the Petitioner, the models.com and TPN articles were about others, and the blog was not shown to be major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted materials did not constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The MTV episode was not about the Petitioner, the models.com and TPN articles were about others, and the blog was not shown to be major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=23692 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge in the 2011 competition in Spain, supported by a letter from the former president and video screenshots, sufficient to fulfill this criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge in the 2011 competition in Spain, supported by a letter from the former president and video screenshots, sufficient to fulfill this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=23693 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Propriety of inadmissibility finding in visa petition proceeding
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that a visa petition proceeding is not the appropriate forum for an inadmissibility determination; such a finding can only be made when the petitioner later applies for admission or adjustment of status.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that a visa petition proceeding is not the appropriate forum for an inadmissibility determination; such a finding can only be made when the petitioner later applies for admission or adjustment of status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=23690 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Threshold documentary requirements for ineffective assistance of counsel (Lozada)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner had not met the Lozada threshold requirements because the affidavit lacked sufficient detail to show former counsel was informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond, and the record contained no complaint to disciplinary authorities or explanation for its absence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner had not met the Lozada threshold requirements because the affidavit lacked sufficient detail to show former counsel was informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond, and the record contained no complaint to disciplinary authorities or explanation for its absence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=23691 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c