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 17891–17900
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three criteria at step one, but noted in dicta that the record would 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 reach a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three criteria at step one, but noted in dicta that the record would not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-21_01_B2203; source_row=20421 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO disagreed with the Director and found the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The record verified both her participation in designs for distinguished brands and the significance of her roles, including serving as design director responsible for launching new lines.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director and found the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The record verified both her participation in designs for distinguished brands and the significance of her roles, including serving as design director responsible for launching new lines.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-21_01_B2203; source_row=20420 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the letters confirmed the Petitioner's value to her employers, they did not detail how she influenced the field beyond her employers. The Petitioner offered no letters from independent brands corroborating her influence on their own designs, no news articles noting the broader influence of her work, and no evidence that she is recognized by independent experts as the primary designer of the shoe.
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 letters confirmed the Petitioner's value to her employers, they did not detail how she influenced the field beyond her employers. The Petitioner offered no letters from independent brands corroborating her influence on their own designs, no news articles noting the broader influence of her work, and no evidence that she is recognized by independent experts as the primary designer of the shoe.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-21_01_B2203; source_row=20419 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the awards were not in the Petitioner's field (vocal music), were not received by the Petitioner, and the one potentially relevant award (for music in a film) was given to others who contributed far more significantly than the Petitioner's 'additional vocals' credit. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's broad reading of 'field' as encompassing all of 'arts.'
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the awards were not in the Petitioner's field (vocal music), were not received by the Petitioner, and the one potentially relevant award (for music in a film) was given to others who contributed far more significantly than the Petitioner's 'additional vocals' credit. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's broad reading of 'field' as encompassing all of 'arts.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=20405 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the criterion was not met, though it criticized the Director's articulation of the standard. AAO found the Petitioner failed to provide evidence or explanation of the impact of her involvement beyond being listed for 'vocals' or 'additional vocals,' and mere participation in a festival does not establish a leading or critical role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was not met, though it criticized the Director's articulation of the standard. AAO found the Petitioner failed to provide evidence or explanation of the impact of her involvement beyond being listed for 'vocals' or 'additional vocals,' and mere participation in a festival does not establish a leading or critical role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=20407 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the box office figures represented commercial success (no production/distribution/promotional cost context), and failed to connect the films' revenues to her own commercial success. She also did not provide specific record sales or commercial success data for her music career.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the box office figures represented commercial success (no production/distribution/promotional cost context), and failed to connect the films' revenues to her own commercial success. She also did not provide specific record sales or commercial success data for her music career.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=20408 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
job opportunity clearly open to U.S. workers (Modular Container)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO weighed the Modular Container factors and concluded the relationships, the Beneficiary's prior employment by the related entity, the timing of her hiring after denial of her spouse's petition, and the missing recruitment report together defeat the bona fides of the job opportunity.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO weighed the Modular Container factors and concluded the relationships, the Beneficiary's prior employment by the related entity, the timing of her hiring after denial of her spouse's petition, and the missing recruitment report together defeat the bona fides of the job opportunity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-20_01_B5203; source_row=20412 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the false 'No' answer to Question C.9 was knowing and material; the brother signed the form under penalty of perjury, and disclosure would have prompted closer DOL scrutiny.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the false 'No' answer to Question C.9 was knowing and material; the brother signed the form under penalty of perjury, and disclosure would have prompted closer DOL scrutiny.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-20_01_B5203; source_row=20413 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c