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.
Inclusion in a book does not constitute 'membership' in an association, the selection standards were not shown to be equivalent to 'outstanding achievements,' the selection team was not shown to comprise recognized national or international experts, and employment or collaboration with other photographers does not constitute association membership.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Inclusion in a book does not constitute 'membership' in an association, the selection standards were not shown to be equivalent to 'outstanding achievements,' the selection team was not shown to comprise recognized national or international experts, and employment or collaboration with other photographers does not constitute association membership.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B2203; source_row=22224 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
Tax returns showed personal income of $79,500, not $170,000 (which was corporate gross revenue); while this is at the higher end of median wages for photographers, the Petitioner did not show it is high compared to other high fashion photographers, and data showed top-end photographer earnings of $100,000 exceeded his salary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Tax returns showed personal income of $79,500, not $170,000 (which was corporate gross revenue); while this is at the higher end of median wages for photographers, the Petitioner did not show it is high compared to other high fashion photographers, and data showed top-end photographer earnings of $100,000 exceeded his salary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B2203; source_row=22230 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
Why AAO was not persuaded
Letters praising the Petitioner's skills and work do not explain how his contributions are of major significance to the field at large; some letters described post-filing events; letters that merely repeat regulatory language without explaining influence on the field are insufficient; USCIS need not accept conclusory statements.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Letters praising the Petitioner's skills and work do not explain how his contributions are of major significance to the field at large; some letters described post-filing events; letters that merely repeat regulatory language without explaining influence on the field are insufficient; USCIS need not accept conclusory statements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B2203; source_row=22227 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that publications and citation counts do not by themselves demonstrate major significance; the recommendation letters were largely conclusory and did not explain how the Petitioner's specific contributions have already widely impacted the field. Prospective or anticipated impacts do not satisfy the criterion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that publications and citation counts do not by themselves demonstrate major significance; the recommendation letters were largely conclusory and did not explain how the Petitioner's specific contributions have already widely impacted the field. Prospective or anticipated impacts do not satisfy the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_01_B2203; source_row=22219 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record does not show a U.S. master's degree or foreign equivalent, and while it establishes the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, there is no evidence of the five years of progressive post-baccalaureate specialty experience required as an alternative path to advanced degree qualification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record does not show a U.S. master's degree or foreign equivalent, and while it establishes the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, there is no evidence of the five years of progressive post-baccalaureate specialty experience required as an alternative path to advanced degree qualification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=22233 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Beneficiary holds only the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and did not have five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by the petition's priority date, so she cannot meet the advanced degree requirement under either path.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary holds only the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and did not have five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by the petition's priority date, so she cannot meet the advanced degree requirement under either path.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_05_B5203; source_row=22239 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO independently found the Beneficiary fails to qualify as an advanced degree professional both because the foreign degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's and because there is no evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience by the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO independently found the Beneficiary fails to qualify as an advanced degree professional both because the foreign degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's and because there is no evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience by the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_01_B5203; source_row=22223 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Beneficiary holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree only. The record does not show a foreign equivalent of a master's degree, nor does it demonstrate five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience that would serve as the master's equivalent under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree only. The record does not show a foreign equivalent of a master's degree, nor does it demonstrate five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience that would serve as the master's equivalent under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_04_B5203; source_row=22236 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary possession of minimum education required by labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The three expert evaluations were found deficient: one misapplied the Carnegie Unit (which does not apply to higher education), failed to indicate how credits were calculated, and relied on unsupported assumptions about classroom hours; another did not explain its credit calculations or equate credits to U.S. accredited institutions. EDGE, a peer-reviewed and court-recognized source, equates the Beneficiary's diploma to a U.S.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The three expert evaluations were found deficient: one misapplied the Carnegie Unit (which does not apply to higher education), failed to indicate how credits were calculated, and relied on unsupported assumptions about classroom hours; another did not explain its credit calculations or equate credits to U.S. accredited institutions. EDGE, a peer-reviewed and court-recognized source, equates the Beneficiary's diploma to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The U.S. program examples all required a prior bachelor's degree, unlike the Beneficiary's integrated program. AILA conference minutes are not binding on USCIS.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=22232 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c