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.
commercial successes in the performing arts (comparable evidence)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility to use comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) because he did not show why he could not satisfy at least three of the ten standard criteria. Moreover, his player rankings were not truly comparable to commercial successes, being more analogous to the awards criterion he already satisfied.
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 demonstrate eligibility to use comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) because he did not show why he could not satisfy at least three of the ten standard criteria. Moreover, his player rankings were not truly comparable to commercial successes, being more analogous to the awards criterion he already satisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_03_B2203; source_row=22925 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherFounder
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not resolve inconsistencies between the salary amounts reported by his employer ($84,615) and those reported to the Azerbaijan government ($40,000), and the comparative salary data provided was insufficient to establish that his earnings were high in relation to others in the field.
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 resolve inconsistencies between the salary amounts reported by his employer ($84,615) and those reported to the Azerbaijan government ($40,000), and the comparative salary data provided was insufficient to establish that his earnings were high in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=22914 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The promotional material and letters do not show that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, and no other evidence demonstrates such recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The promotional material and letters do not show that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, and no other evidence demonstrates such recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=22909 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
Without the association bylaws, the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the associations require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry is grounds for denial.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Without the association bylaws, the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the associations require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry is grounds for denial.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=22910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals and at conferences. AAO agreed with the Director that this criterion was satisfied.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals and at conferences. AAO agreed with the Director that this criterion was satisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_02_B2203; source_row=22918 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other43 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO did not reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria. In advisory dicta, AAO noted the record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria. In advisory dicta, AAO noted the record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_02_B2203; source_row=22921 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 declined to reach final merits because the Petitioner did not meet the initial threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach final merits because the Petitioner did not meet the initial threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_03_B2203; source_row=22926 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c