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.
10,847 decisions /36,849 findings
Showing 15201–15210
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why the evidence was persuasive
Both the director and AAO found the Beneficiary commands high earnings relative to others in his field, satisfying the high salary criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Both the director and AAO found the Beneficiary commands high earnings relative to others in his field, satisfying the high salary criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-27_01_B2203; source_row=23342 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the evidence of the Beneficiary's service on the Petitioner's internal patent review board sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion at step 1.
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 Beneficiary's service on the Petitioner's internal patent review board sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion at step 1.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-27_01_B2203; source_row=23339 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's judging was limited to internal patent review without evidence of external field recognition; his critical role benefited his employer but was not shown to have produced widespread acclaim; his high salary did not independently demonstrate national or international acclaim; his 82 granted patents had limited citation impact (181 patents uncited, most-cited patent had only 33 citations); press coverage neve…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's judging was limited to internal patent review without evidence of external field recognition; his critical role benefited his employer but was not shown to have produced widespread acclaim; his high salary did not independently demonstrate national or international acclaim; his 82 granted patents had limited citation impact (181 patents uncited, most-cited patent had only 33 citations); press coverage never mentioned the Beneficiary; and recommendation letters lacked specific supporting detail.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-27_01_B2203; source_row=23343 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the record contained evidence showing the Beneficiary performed in a critical role for the Petitioner, satisfying criterion (viii) at step 1.
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 contained evidence showing the Beneficiary performed in a critical role for the Petitioner, satisfying criterion (viii) at step 1.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-27_01_B2203; source_row=23341 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary's qualifying experience for advanced degree classification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new tax records support employment at the law firm from 2005 to 2010 but do not resolve the inconsistency created by a 2011 visa application listing the Beneficiary as a 'partner owner' of another company from 2007 to 2010, nor the 2007 application listing his occupation as 'lawyer.' Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions cannot cure these inconsistencies, and if the Beneficiary worked part-time for the law firm, he may l…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new tax records support employment at the law firm from 2005 to 2010 but do not resolve the inconsistency created by a 2011 visa application listing the Beneficiary as a 'partner owner' of another company from 2007 to 2010, nor the 2007 application listing his occupation as 'lawyer.' Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions cannot cure these inconsistencies, and if the Beneficiary worked part-time for the law firm, he may lack the full five years required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-23_01_B5203; source_row=23335 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Continuing ability to pay proffered wage from priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner omitted the 2016 evidence on motion and merely requested leave to submit it later, which is not permitted under the single-filing rule for motions to reopen. The record thus still lacks proof of ability to pay for the priority date year.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner omitted the 2016 evidence on motion and merely requested leave to submit it later, which is not permitted under the single-filing rule for motions to reopen. The record thus still lacks proof of ability to pay for the priority date year.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-23_01_B5203; source_row=23336 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary meets minimum experience requirement for the offered position
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's self-authored letter for the 2012–2013 period is insufficient without independent corroborating evidence. Third-party letters for 2015–2016 cover only about one year and omit many of the offered position's required duties and technologies, so the record fails to show two years of experience in the job offered.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's self-authored letter for the 2012–2013 period is insufficient without independent corroborating evidence. Third-party letters for 2015–2016 cover only about one year and omit many of the offered position's required duties and technologies, so the record fails to show two years of experience in the job offered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-23_02_B5203; source_row=23337 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay proffered wage from priority date onward
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted 2016 tax return belongs to the parent company, not the LLC petitioner, and bank statements confirm the parent owns nearly all assets. No regulatory-required evidence of the Petitioner's own finances was submitted, and the record also lacks information on the combined proffered wages of the Petitioner's other pending petitions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted 2016 tax return belongs to the parent company, not the LLC petitioner, and bank statements confirm the parent owns nearly all assets. No regulatory-required evidence of the Petitioner's own finances was submitted, and the record also lacks information on the combined proffered wages of the Petitioner's other pending petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-23_02_B5203; source_row=23338 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not identify other institutions where her system was implemented, the cooperative agreements showed school-level partnerships without establishing field-wide major significance, and the expert letters praised her management skills without explaining specific original pedagogic contributions of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not identify other institutions where her system was implemented, the cooperative agreements showed school-level partnerships without establishing field-wide major significance, and the expert letters praised her management skills without explaining specific original pedagogic contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-20_02_B2203; source_row=23329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Regardless of the geographic scope of laureate selection, the record does not show that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, nor does any other evidence demonstrate such recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Regardless of the geographic scope of laureate selection, the record does not show that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, nor does any other evidence demonstrate such recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-20_02_B2203; source_row=23325 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c