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.
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
What the decision said
The issue was abandoned on appeal for failure to address the Director's specific concerns. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his articles were published in a qualified professional or major trade publication or major media.
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 +
The issue was abandoned on appeal for failure to address the Director's specific concerns. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his articles were published in a qualified professional or major trade publication or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=20064 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold Step 1 requirement. It nonetheless noted in the alternative that the aggregate 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 declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold Step 1 requirement. It nonetheless noted in the alternative that the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=20066 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award (as athlete)
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the Petitioner, as a table tennis player, demonstrated a one-time achievement constituting a major, internationally recognized award based on his world championship in the men's team event and other top finishes at the highest-level international table tennis competitions.
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, as a table tennis player, demonstrated a one-time achievement constituting a major, internationally recognized award based on his world championship in the men's team event and other top finishes at the highest-level international table tennis competitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=20067 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's athletic acclaim was not sustained because his most recent competitive achievement predated the petition filing by approximately 10 years, failing to show a continued comparable level of acclaim through the filing date.
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's athletic acclaim was not sustained because his most recent competitive achievement predated the petition filing by approximately 10 years, failing to show a continued comparable level of acclaim through the filing date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=20069 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 (as coach)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any athlete he trained won an Olympic medal or achieved comparable success under his principal tutelage. The reference letters also did not show he was the athletes' primary coach when they won major competitions.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any athlete he trained won an Olympic medal or achieved comparable success under his principal tutelage. The reference letters also did not show he was the athletes' primary coach when they won major competitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=20068 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Area of expertise — coaching within scope of athletic extraordinary ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the Petitioner's athletic acclaim is not recent (over 10 years old at the time of filing), and he has not independently demonstrated extraordinary ability as a coach, coaching cannot be considered within his area of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner's athletic acclaim is not recent (over 10 years old at the time of filing), and he has not independently demonstrated extraordinary ability as a coach, coaching cannot be considered within his area of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=20070 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner paid the Beneficiary only $54,568 of the $120,016 proffered wage in 2013 and submitted no 2014 wages. Net income ($68,327 in 2013; $54,774 in 2014) and net current assets ($0 in 2013; -$62,461 in 2014) were insufficient, and the Petitioner sponsored eight other beneficiaries with combined shortfalls of $134,471 (2013) and $205,067 (2014). No Sonegawa-type factors warranted a different conclusion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner paid the Beneficiary only $54,568 of the $120,016 proffered wage in 2013 and submitted no 2014 wages. Net income ($68,327 in 2013; $54,774 in 2014) and net current assets ($0 in 2013; -$62,461 in 2014) were insufficient, and the Petitioner sponsored eight other beneficiaries with combined shortfalls of $134,471 (2013) and $205,067 (2014). No Sonegawa-type factors warranted a different conclusion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-27_01_B5203; source_row=20057 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concluded the evidence did not detail the staffing company's or end client's role in the Beneficiary's employment chain or establish who controlled and supervised the Beneficiary's day-to-day work. The new letters submitted on motion did not establish the Petitioner's control over the Beneficiary's work.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded the evidence did not detail the staffing company's or end client's role in the Beneficiary's employment chain or establish who controlled and supervised the Beneficiary's day-to-day work. The new letters submitted on motion did not establish the Petitioner's control over the Beneficiary's work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-27_01_B5203; source_row=20056 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
possession of qualifying advanced degree or equivalent
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Pakistani 'Master of Science' is equivalent to only a U.S. bachelor's degree per EDGE/AACRAO, and that the same degree cannot qualify as a U.S. credential because the issuing institution is unaccredited in the United States.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Pakistani 'Master of Science' is equivalent to only a U.S. bachelor's degree per EDGE/AACRAO, and that the same degree cannot qualify as a U.S. credential because the issuing institution is unaccredited in the United States.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-21_01_B5203; source_row=20053 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that, while the degree does not meet U.S. equivalency standards, that determination does not make the documentation per se fraudulent, and therefore the evidence does not support findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that, while the degree does not meet U.S. equivalency standards, that determination does not make the documentation per se fraudulent, and therefore the evidence does not support findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-01-21_01_B5203; source_row=20055 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c