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.
Beneficiary's degree in a field of study acceptable for the offered position
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found, on de novo review of the educational documents, that the preponderance of the evidence shows the Beneficiary holds a foreign equivalent of the required degree in an acceptable field of study.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found, on de novo review of the educational documents, that the preponderance of the evidence shows the Beneficiary holds a foreign equivalent of the required degree in an acceptable field of study.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-04_01_B5203; source_row=23382 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Petitioner established the originality of his book, the evidence did not show the overall field viewed it as a contribution of major significance. Letters offered praise but lacked specific detail about field-wide impact. Claims about software development and federal legislation were not corroborated as attributable to the Petitioner's work.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the Petitioner established the originality of his book, the evidence did not show the overall field viewed it as a contribution of major significance. Letters offered praise but lacked specific detail about field-wide impact. Claims about software development and federal legislation were not corroborated as attributable to the Petitioner's work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_01_B2203; source_row=23372 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the evidence did not demonstrate how the Petitioner's committee roles constituted a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole, as the letter described only his commission roles without establishing significance to the broader organization's activities.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the evidence did not demonstrate how the Petitioner's committee roles constituted a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole, as the letter described only his commission roles without establishing significance to the broader organization's activities.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_01_B2203; source_row=23373 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the letters explaining who selected the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, and the association regulations did not reflect that outstanding achievements are a prerequisite for membership or committee positions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the letters explaining who selected the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, and the association regulations did not reflect that outstanding achievements are a prerequisite for membership or committee positions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_01_B2203; source_row=23371 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
AAO agreed the Director erred in requiring discussion of standing or ranking, but independently found the published material criterion was not met because most articles lacked required dates, authors, or source identification; one article was not about the Petitioner; one was published after the petition was filed; and the remaining article appeared in a regional community newspaper that did not constitute major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Director erred in requiring discussion of standing or ranking, but independently found the published material criterion was not met because most articles lacked required dates, authors, or source identification; one article was not about the Petitioner; one was published after the petition was filed; and the remaining article appeared in a regional community newspaper that did not constitute major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_02_B2203; source_row=23376 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Valid labor certification filed within 180-day validity period
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the evidence contradicts the Petitioner's claim of a timely filing. The unprocessed check #4311 submitted by the Petitioner was for $700.00, but the actual processed check #4311 on file with USCIS was for $750.00, dated January 31, 2017, with 'I-485' in the memo line, and was associated with a different beneficiary's filing.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the evidence contradicts the Petitioner's claim of a timely filing. The unprocessed check #4311 submitted by the Petitioner was for $700.00, but the actual processed check #4311 on file with USCIS was for $750.00, dated January 31, 2017, with 'I-485' in the memo line, and was associated with a different beneficiary's filing. Additionally, USCIS records show the companion I-140 petition could not have been mailed on March 1, 2017, as claimed, because USCIS received it on March 7, 2017. AAO concluded the labor certification was expired when the petition was actually filed on May 15, 2017.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_01_B5203; source_row=23375 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of at least three criteria, while noting in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of at least three criteria, while noting in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_01_B2203; source_row=23374 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the Director's limitation of this criterion to visual arts, finding that the Petitioner's films screened at the LA Femme Film Festival, Durban International Film Festival, and Cannes Film Festival, as well as her theatre work in South Africa, constituted display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's limitation of this criterion to visual arts, finding that the Petitioner's films screened at the LA Femme Film Festival, Durban International Film Festival, and Cannes Film Festival, as well as her theatre work in South Africa, constituted display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-29_02_B2203; source_row=23378 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c