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.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The employer certificates were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field; the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the overall field recognizes these employer certificates as awards for excellence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The employer certificates were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field; the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the overall field recognizes these employer certificates as awards for excellence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=23616 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 three submitted letters praised the Petitioner's personal and job abilities but did not identify original contributions to the field or explain how any contributions were of major significance. The letters were conclusory and lacked specifics.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The three submitted letters praised the Petitioner's personal and job abilities but did not identify original contributions to the field or explain how any contributions were of major significance. The letters were conclusory and lacked specifics.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=23619 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to provide comparative wage data for other testing engineers and did not establish that testing engineers are comparable to mechanical engineers for purposes of the 'in relation to others in the field' requirement. Even considering mechanical engineer wages, his salary was not at the higher end of the scale, and being '10% beyond national coverage' was not shown to indicate a 'high salary.'
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to provide comparative wage data for other testing engineers and did not establish that testing engineers are comparable to mechanical engineers for purposes of the 'in relation to others in the field' requirement. Even considering mechanical engineer wages, his salary was not at the higher end of the scale, and being '10% beyond national coverage' was not shown to indicate a 'high salary.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=23621 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters confirmed employment but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role; the assertions about significant roles lacked elaboration and specifics. Additionally, the letters did not establish that the companies had a distinguished reputation, and website screenshots were insufficient to demonstrate an eminent reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters confirmed employment but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role; the assertions about significant roles lacked elaboration and specifics. Additionally, the letters did not establish that the companies had a distinguished reputation, and website screenshots were insufficient to demonstrate an eminent reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=23620 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's certificate and brief conflicted with the supporting letter regarding whether he judged or merely participated at the 2011 event. Unresolved material inconsistencies undermined the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's certificate and brief conflicted with the supporting letter regarding whether he judged or merely participated at the 2011 event. Unresolved material inconsistencies undermined the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=23618 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner did not show his citations rise to major significance, noting that citation numbers were not contextualized against similarly highly-cited articles the field views as majorly significant, that the book chapter gave only three sentences and two figures to his work, that recommendation letters were insufficiently specific and relied on hyperbolic language, and that the silicon photonics platform lette…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner did not show his citations rise to major significance, noting that citation numbers were not contextualized against similarly highly-cited articles the field views as majorly significant, that the book chapter gave only three sentences and two figures to his work, that recommendation letters were insufficiently specific and relied on hyperbolic language, and that the silicon photonics platform letters lacked detail about unusual influence on the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_02_B2203; source_row=23629 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
ability to pay combined proffered wages of multiple petitions
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the petitioner failed to provide proffered wages, priority dates, and wage payment evidence for 78 other applicable petitions, despite a NOID request. The revenue-generation argument failed because the beneficiary had not begun working as of the October 7, 2016 priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the petitioner failed to provide proffered wages, priority dates, and wage payment evidence for 78 other applicable petitions, despite a NOID request. The revenue-generation argument failed because the beneficiary had not begun working as of the October 7, 2016 priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_02_B5203; source_row=23631 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud under section 204(c)
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO independently reviewed the record and found multiple independent indicia of marriage fraud: separate residences throughout the marriage, a child fathered with his first wife during the marriage, an ID obtained one day before the immigration interview at a different address, initial tax filings as single/head of household rather than married, lease agreements not listing T-M-, and credibility problems with all affiants.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO independently reviewed the record and found multiple independent indicia of marriage fraud: separate residences throughout the marriage, a child fathered with his first wife during the marriage, an ID obtained one day before the immigration interview at a different address, initial tax filings as single/head of household rather than married, lease agreements not listing T-M-, and credibility problems with all affiants. The Petitioner's evidence did not overcome this derogatory information by a preponderance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-19_01_B5203; source_row=23623 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c