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.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the regulation requires evidence of the Beneficiary's own receipt of a qualifying award, and while the Beneficiary may have contributed to team victories, he was not named as a recipient of the awards. No award certificates were issued to the Beneficiary nor were there media reports listing him as a winner.
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 regulation requires evidence of the Beneficiary's own receipt of a qualifying award, and while the Beneficiary may have contributed to team victories, he was not named as a recipient of the awards. No award certificates were issued to the Beneficiary nor were there media reports listing him as a winner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B2203; source_row=20372 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's emphasis on the plural language in the regulation but agreed the criterion was not met. The Beneficiary's coaching role is a job position rather than an association membership, and the letter describing membership requirements was conclusory without detailing the specific requirements or providing objective documentation such as bylaws.
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's emphasis on the plural language in the regulation but agreed the criterion was not met. The Beneficiary's coaching role is a job position rather than an association membership, and the letter describing membership requirements was conclusory without detailing the specific requirements or providing objective documentation such as bylaws.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B2203; source_row=20373 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 did not reach a formal final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the alternative that the record in the aggregate 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 did not reach a formal final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the alternative that the record in the aggregate does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B2203; source_row=20377 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record inconsistent regarding the Beneficiary's actual role, noting that another individual was identified as coach in a news article and listed his own title covering training responsibilities. The Petitioner failed to provide an organizational hierarchy showing all coaches and the Beneficiary's place within it, and did not explain the Beneficiary's concrete impact on the organization's results.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record inconsistent regarding the Beneficiary's actual role, noting that another individual was identified as coach in a news article and listed his own title covering training responsibilities. The Petitioner failed to provide an organizational hierarchy showing all coaches and the Beneficiary's place within it, and did not explain the Beneficiary's concrete impact on the organization's results.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B2203; source_row=20376 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 the athletes' awards could in principle serve as comparable evidence under the AFM guidance for Olympic medals, but none of the awards listed were Olympic medals. Additionally, a news article identified a different individual as the coach, and there were no letters from athletes confirming they were primarily under the Beneficiary's tutelage, so the Beneficiary's role in the athletes' victories was not established.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the athletes' awards could in principle serve as comparable evidence under the AFM guidance for Olympic medals, but none of the awards listed were Olympic medals. Additionally, a news article identified a different individual as the coach, and there were no letters from athletes confirming they were primarily under the Beneficiary's tutelage, so the Beneficiary's role in the athletes' victories was not established.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B2203; source_row=20375 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Notice of filing requirements (20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the notice posted from September 4 to September 18, 2014 did not satisfy the 10 consecutive business days requirement within the 30-to-180-day window before the October 9, 2014 filing, and the Petitioner provided no evidence of in-house publication.
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 notice posted from September 4 to September 18, 2014 did not satisfy the 10 consecutive business days requirement within the 30-to-180-day window before the October 9, 2014 filing, and the Petitioner provided no evidence of in-house publication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-08_01_B5203; source_row=20378 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter referencing incorporation of his work into the organization's constitution lacked corroboration of the petitioner's claimed impact. Praise for his book shows respect within the field but not major significance or impact.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letter referencing incorporation of his work into the organization's constitution lacked corroboration of the petitioner's claimed impact. Praise for his book shows respect within the field but not major significance or impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-07_01_B2203; source_row=20367 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Whether internship duties matched the offered graphic designer position
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the internship supervisor's description of the Beneficiary's duties—assembling design presentations and sending sample comments to vendors—did not demonstrate the hands-on design and concept-creation responsibilities required by the offered position. Additionally, AAO noted uncertainty as to whether the internship was a degree requirement, which would further disqualify it as qualifying experience.
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 internship supervisor's description of the Beneficiary's duties—assembling design presentations and sending sample comments to vendors—did not demonstrate the hands-on design and concept-creation responsibilities required by the offered position. Additionally, AAO noted uncertainty as to whether the internship was a degree requirement, which would further disqualify it as qualifying experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-07_02_B5203; source_row=20371 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that because the job descriptions for the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner and the offered position are identical on the labor certification, the experience is substantially comparable and cannot be used to qualify the Beneficiary under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that because the job descriptions for the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner and the offered position are identical on the labor certification, the experience is substantially comparable and cannot be used to qualify the Beneficiary under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-06-07_02_B5203; source_row=20369 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c