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 16121–16130
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The salary documents lacked required certified translations or originals, making meaningful evaluation impossible. The BLS petroleum engineer data was inapt because the Petitioner worked as a high-ranking oil executive, not a field petroleum engineer. The Petitioner also failed to compare his salary to similarly-ranked executives, and unexplained discrepancies in salary figures remained unresolved.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The salary documents lacked required certified translations or originals, making meaningful evaluation impossible. The BLS petroleum engineer data was inapt because the Petitioner worked as a high-ranking oil executive, not a field petroleum engineer. The Petitioner also failed to compare his salary to similarly-ranked executives, and unexplained discrepancies in salary figures remained unresolved.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22315 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective corroborating evidence that his designs and projects widely impacted the field. The letters submitted were vague, solicited from local colleagues, and did not explain how contributions rose to a level 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 failed to provide independent, objective corroborating evidence that his designs and projects widely impacted the field. The letters submitted were vague, solicited from local colleagues, and did not explain how contributions rose to a level of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22312 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and oil executive, provided no evidence of commercial success in the performing arts. His comparable evidence argument failed because he did not explain why the criterion was inapplicable to his occupation or how his evidence was comparable, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and oil executive, provided no evidence of commercial success in the performing arts. His comparable evidence argument failed because he did not explain why the criterion was inapplicable to his occupation or how his evidence was comparable, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22316 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not establish that his technical reports constitute 'scholarly articles' or appeared in 'professional or major trade publications or other major media.' On appeal, he submitted no new qualifying evidence and merely repeated his preponderance claim.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not establish that his technical reports constitute 'scholarly articles' or appeared in 'professional or major trade publications or other major media.' On appeal, he submitted no new qualifying evidence and merely repeated his preponderance claim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22313 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the leading or critical role criterion based on his service as Director, Board Member, and Leader of a control committee.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the leading or critical role criterion based on his service as Director, Board Member, and Leader of a control committee.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22314 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concurred with the Director that the Petitioner met the judging criterion based on evidence of serving on jury panels to review civil engineering theses of university students.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO concurred with the Director that the Petitioner met the judging criterion based on evidence of serving on jury panels to review civil engineering theses of university students.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22311 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless noted in passing that the aggregate record did not support the required level of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless noted in passing that the aggregate record did not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-30_01_B2203; source_row=22317 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementManagerPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter renewing his appointment as Director, specifying responsibilities, and letters from the President of the Board of Governors and Director of the Board of Directors praising his leading role; AAO concluded this evidence establishes the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter renewing his appointment as Director, specifying responsibilities, and letters from the President of the Board of Governors and Director of the Board of Directors praising his leading role; AAO concluded this evidence establishes the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=22305 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementManagerPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the petitioner's record—including high citation rates, editorial board roles, directorship of a distinguished institution, and expert letters attesting to his influence in marketing research—collectively demonstrates he is among the small percentage at the top of his field with sustained acclaim.
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's record—including high citation rates, editorial board roles, directorship of a distinguished institution, and expert letters attesting to his influence in marketing research—collectively demonstrates he is among the small percentage at the top of his field with sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=22307 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c