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.
Beneficiary's qualifying experience under the labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The single employment letter submitted conflicts with the labor certification's representation that the Beneficiary worked in India from November 2004 to December 2006, as the letter does not mention that Indian employment. Without those approximately 2 years, the Beneficiary has only about 4 years of qualifying experience, falling short of the required 5 years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The single employment letter submitted conflicts with the labor certification's representation that the Beneficiary worked in India from November 2004 to December 2006, as the letter does not mention that Indian employment. Without those approximately 2 years, the Beneficiary has only about 4 years of qualifying experience, falling short of the required 5 years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-27_01_B5203; source_row=20430 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's post-baccalaureate experience totaled less than one year by the priority date. Experience gained prior to obtaining the master's degree could not be counted toward the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's post-baccalaureate experience totaled less than one year by the priority date. Experience gained prior to obtaining the master's degree could not be counted toward the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-27_02_B5203; source_row=20432 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate her awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The translation certifications were deficient, the awards lacked documented selection criteria or evidence of recognition beyond the awarding entity, and at least one award was described as promoting general women's self-improvement rather than achievement in a specific field.
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 failed to demonstrate her awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The translation certifications were deficient, the awards lacked documented selection criteria or evidence of recognition beyond the awarding entity, and at least one award was described as promoting general women's self-improvement rather than achievement in a specific field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20422 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
AAO found that while the Petitioner's television show enjoyed some success locally, the letters in support did not provide specific examples of how contributions influenced the field as a whole, and no documentary evidence demonstrated that her work affected the television industry at a level indicative of a contribution of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the Petitioner's television show enjoyed some success locally, the letters in support did not provide specific examples of how contributions influenced the field as a whole, and no documentary evidence demonstrated that her work affected the television industry at a level indicative of a contribution of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20426 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate her articles were peer-reviewed or scholarly, that the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media, or that one article was published in any media at all. Other submitted works bore no indication of publication.
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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate her articles were peer-reviewed or scholarly, that the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media, or that one article was published in any media at all. Other submitted works bore no indication of publication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20427 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reviewed the record on its own initiative and found that while some certificates mentioned the Petitioner's appointment or invitation to serve as a judge, none demonstrated she actually functioned in the capacity of judge for any specific competition. AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on this criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the record on its own initiative and found that while some certificates mentioned the Petitioner's appointment or invitation to serve as a judge, none demonstrated she actually functioned in the capacity of judge for any specific competition. AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20425 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that multiple articles lacked identified authors as required by regulation, descriptions from a search engine could not be corroborated, and the Petitioner provided no objective evidence of circulation figures to demonstrate any publication qualifies as professional or major trade publications or 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 that multiple articles lacked identified authors as required by regulation, descriptions from a search engine could not be corroborated, and the Petitioner provided no objective evidence of circulation figures to demonstrate any publication qualifies as professional or major trade publications or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20424 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that holding an official position within an organization, without evidence of the requirements for that position, does not show that outstanding achievements are prerequisites. The Petitioner failed to provide membership requirements for most organizations or requirements for attaining the official positions she held.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that holding an official position within an organization, without evidence of the requirements for that position, does not show that outstanding achievements are prerequisites. The Petitioner failed to provide membership requirements for most organizations or requirements for attaining the official positions she held. Evidence related to conferences did not show actual association membership, and the adjunct professorship was not shown to be at an association requiring outstanding achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20423 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 conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at Step 1, but noted in the aggregate the record does 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 explicitly declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at Step 1, but noted in the aggregate the record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-24_01_B2203; source_row=20428 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published materials
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that articles not mentioning the Petitioner by name are not 'about' her as required by the plain language of the regulation. AAO also rejected the comparable evidence argument because the Petitioner did not explain how items not about a designer are comparable to articles that are.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that articles not mentioning the Petitioner by name are not 'about' her as required by the plain language of the regulation. AAO also rejected the comparable evidence argument because the Petitioner did not explain how items not about a designer are comparable to articles that are.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-21_01_B2203; source_row=20417 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c