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 15321–15330
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's CER research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, noting publications disseminating valuable information and evidence of national-level impact.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
The AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's CER research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, noting publications disseminating valuable information and evidence of national-level impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-29_01_B5203; source_row=23202 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found deficiencies in author identification across multiple transcriptions, including missing authors and inconsistent attribution of the same interview to different authors on different websites. AAO also found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the websites constituted major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found deficiencies in author identification across multiple transcriptions, including missing authors and inconsistent attribution of the same interview to different authors on different websites. AAO also found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the websites constituted major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=23196 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
AAO found that the hourly FLC comparison was inapposite because the Petitioner was paid a project rate, not an hourly rate, and she did not provide evidence comparing her project wages to others in her field. Moreover, her total earnings of $16,000 were below even entry-level annual salaries for choreographers in her area.
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 hourly FLC comparison was inapposite because the Petitioner was paid a project rate, not an hourly rate, and she did not provide evidence comparing her project wages to others in her field. Moreover, her total earnings of $16,000 were below even entry-level annual salaries for choreographers in her area.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=23200 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner did not show why she could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria, and failed to demonstrate that auditioning for TV shows is truly comparable to association membership requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The Petitioner auditioned against other dancers for roles rather than being selected based on past outstanding achievements.
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 Petitioner did not show why she could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria, and failed to demonstrate that auditioning for TV shows is truly comparable to association membership requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The Petitioner auditioned against other dancers for roles rather than being selected based on past outstanding achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=23195 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner did not show how her performances on TV shows constitute roles for 'organizations or establishments,' did not demonstrate how her roles were leading or critical to production companies or stations, and did not establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations. Recommendation letters lacked specific probative information about the leading or critical nature of her roles.
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 Petitioner did not show how her performances on TV shows constitute roles for 'organizations or establishments,' did not demonstrate how her roles were leading or critical to production companies or stations, and did not establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations. Recommendation letters lacked specific probative information about the leading or critical nature of her roles.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=23199 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-one threshold of at least three criteria. AAO noted in dicta that the record in the aggregate does not support the required finding of sustained acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-one threshold of at least three criteria. AAO noted in dicta that the record in the aggregate does not support the required finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=23201 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Golden Transcript's readership was not established in the record. The blog article was not about the Petitioner or his work — it only briefly identified him as a panel participant. Neither source was shown to be a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Golden Transcript's readership was not established in the record. The blog article was not about the Petitioner or his work — it only briefly identified him as a panel participant. Neither source was shown to be a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-23_02_B2203; source_row=23191 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's rope-fixing pertains to specific expeditions on Mt. Everest, not the field as a whole. His heroic rescue efforts, while personally impactful, are not demonstrated to be original contributions of major significance throughout the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's rope-fixing pertains to specific expeditions on Mt. Everest, not the field as a whole. His heroic rescue efforts, while personally impactful, are not demonstrated to be original contributions of major significance throughout the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-23_02_B2203; source_row=23192 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c