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.
Date of bachelor's degree / five years post-baccalaureate experience by priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted a case-specific analysis and found that no documentary confirmation from the university that the Beneficiary had completed all degree requirements and received university approval existed prior to the December 31, 2010 diploma. The eighth-semester transcript was issued in October 2010 and did not affirm degree completion in June 2007.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted a case-specific analysis and found that no documentary confirmation from the university that the Beneficiary had completed all degree requirements and received university approval existed prior to the December 31, 2010 diploma. The eighth-semester transcript was issued in October 2010 and did not affirm degree completion in June 2007. The provisional certificate postdated the diploma by 17 days without explanation. The assistant registrar's letter was prepared nine years after the fact and lacks contemporaneous evidentiary weight. Credential evaluations are advisory only and cannot substitute for official academic records.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-27_01_B5203; source_row=21959 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer2,015 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance, but reserved full analysis for the final merits determination rather than excluding the evidence from step 2 consideration.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance, but reserved full analysis for the final merits determination rather than excluding the evidence from step 2 consideration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_02_B2203; source_row=21947 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer2,015 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO weighed the totality of the evidence — press coverage concentrated in a single year, scholarly articles with a nine-year publication gap and modest citations, projects still under development, only provisional patents, and a high salary achieved only recently — and concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO weighed the totality of the evidence — press coverage concentrated in a single year, scholarly articles with a nine-year publication gap and modest citations, projects still under development, only provisional patents, and a high salary achieved only recently — and concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_02_B2203; source_row=21950 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Incorrect Application of Law or Policy
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate any legal or policy error. His evidence related to post-filing events, his motion to reopen brief did not specify which criteria the evidence addressed, and his arguments about the recommendation letters concerned the original appeal decision rather than the motion to reopen denial.…
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 demonstrate any legal or policy error. His evidence related to post-filing events, his motion to reopen brief did not specify which criteria the evidence addressed, and his arguments about the recommendation letters concerned the original appeal decision rather than the motion to reopen denial. The Petitioner failed to identify specific documents AAO overlooked or explain how cited court cases showed a misapplication of law.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=21943 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Judicial Proceeding Statement
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO acknowledged that the Petitioner did in fact include the required judicial proceeding statement in his prior motion to reopen brief, and withdrew its prior finding on this issue.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO acknowledged that the Petitioner did in fact include the required judicial proceeding statement in his prior motion to reopen brief, and withdrew its prior finding on this issue.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_01_B2203; source_row=21942 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
beneficiary possessed specific skills required by labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
Beneficiary's CGFNS Certificate and licensure in another state and Illinois did not show NCLEX passage or New York licensure as required by the labor certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Beneficiary's CGFNS Certificate and licensure in another state and Illinois did not show NCLEX passage or New York licensure as required by the labor certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_02_B5203; source_row=21953 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Without information regarding the additional 125+ I-140 beneficiaries, AAO could not determine whether net income, line of credit, or bank statement funds were sufficient to cover combined wage obligations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Without information regarding the additional 125+ I-140 beneficiaries, AAO could not determine whether net income, line of credit, or bank statement funds were sufficient to cover combined wage obligations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_02_B5203; source_row=21951 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer2,015 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that an article in a professional publication featuring the Petitioner discussing his work qualifies under the published material criterion, which the Director had not credited.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that an article in a professional publication featuring the Petitioner discussing his work qualifies under the published material criterion, which the Director had not credited.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-25_02_B2203; source_row=21946 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c