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.
AAO independently found, beyond the Director's decision, that three of four employer letters failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) for lacking specific duty descriptions and/or required identifying information. Only one compliant letter covered fewer than eight months, well short of the required 24 months.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO independently found, beyond the Director's decision, that three of four employer letters failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) for lacking specific duty descriptions and/or required identifying information. Only one compliant letter covered fewer than eight months, well short of the required 24 months.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-22_01_B5203; source_row=20150 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted de novo review and withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the submitted articles were not 'about' the Petitioner—he was only mentioned briefly or in photo captions—and that other publications were not shown to qualify as major media or professional/major trade publications. A YouTube video with 353 views on an openly accessible platform did not constitute qualifying published material.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted de novo review and withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the submitted articles were not 'about' the Petitioner—he was only mentioned briefly or in photo captions—and that other publications were not shown to qualify as major media or professional/major trade publications. A YouTube video with 353 views on an openly accessible platform did not constitute qualifying published material.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_03_B2203; source_row=20144 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that being asked to meet with foreign visitors as a program participant does not constitute receipt of a prize or award, and that the Petitioner did not show national or international recognition of any such award in the field. Participation in an arts education project similarly did not constitute receipt of a prize or award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that being asked to meet with foreign visitors as a program participant does not constitute receipt of a prize or award, and that the Petitioner did not show national or international recognition of any such award in the field. Participation in an arts education project similarly did not constitute receipt of a prize or award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_03_B2203; source_row=20143 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or other significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's actual earnings of $45,255–$48,067 fell below the BLS median wages for buyers and purchasing agents. The job offers she cited were prospective (post-petition-filing date) and therefore could not establish eligibility at time of filing; additionally, purchasing manager median wages exceeded the offered salaries, so even those offers would not have satisfied the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's actual earnings of $45,255–$48,067 fell below the BLS median wages for buyers and purchasing agents. The job offers she cited were prospective (post-petition-filing date) and therefore could not establish eligibility at time of filing; additionally, purchasing manager median wages exceeded the offered salaries, so even those offers would not have satisfied the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_02_B2203; source_row=20141 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO stated it need not conduct a full final merits determination since the Petitioner failed the initial evidentiary threshold, but alternatively found that even reviewing the aggregate record, the Petitioner had not achieved the level of expertise required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO stated it need not conduct a full final merits determination since the Petitioner failed the initial evidentiary threshold, but alternatively found that even reviewing the aggregate record, the Petitioner had not achieved the level of expertise required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_02_B2203; source_row=20142 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The judging evidence post-dated the January 2014 filing date and the Petitioner had never previously claimed this criterion. The letter was also conclusory, lacking details on the nature of judging responsibilities or confirmation that students are in the same or allied field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The judging evidence post-dated the January 2014 filing date and the Petitioner had never previously claimed this criterion. The letter was also conclusory, lacking details on the nature of judging responsibilities or confirmation that students are in the same or allied field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=20137 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter affirming a 'critical' role was conclusory and unsupported by specific evidence. The record also lacked evidence that the organization has a distinguished reputation, and the Petitioner was not shown to be a site administrator at the time of the January 2014 filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letter affirming a 'critical' role was conclusory and unsupported by specific evidence. The record also lacked evidence that the organization has a distinguished reputation, and the Petitioner was not shown to be a site administrator at the time of the January 2014 filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=20138 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
AAO found that the reference letters praised the Petitioner's skills and talent but did not detail how his work significantly impacted the field as a whole. Outreach and mentoring activities were not shown to be original or to have impacted the field broadly, and impact limited to an organization or program does 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 the reference letters praised the Petitioner's skills and talent but did not detail how his work significantly impacted the field as a whole. Outreach and mentoring activities were not shown to be original or to have impacted the field broadly, and impact limited to an organization or program does not satisfy the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_03_B2203; source_row=20145 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organization
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the totality of the evidence, including the appeal submissions, sufficiently established that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the organization and that it enjoys a distinguished reputation, withdrawing the Director's adverse determination on this criterion.
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 totality of the evidence, including the appeal submissions, sufficiently established that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the organization and that it enjoys a distinguished reputation, withdrawing the Director's adverse determination on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_03_B2203; source_row=20146 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to formally conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the initial evidentiary requirements, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record would not support the classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to formally conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the initial evidentiary requirements, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record would not support the classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-02-19_01_B2203; source_row=20139 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c