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 18681–18690
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
General and conclusory opinions repeating the statutory standard do not establish major significance. The letters lacked specificity about the impact of the petitioner's contributions. Vague solicited letters from local colleagues and similarities between letters further reduced their probative value. The petitioner's role as a volunteer and assistant coach for an already award-winning program is insufficient on its own.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
General and conclusory opinions repeating the statutory standard do not establish major significance. The letters lacked specificity about the impact of the petitioner's contributions. Vague solicited letters from local colleagues and similarities between letters further reduced their probative value. The petitioner's role as a volunteer and assistant coach for an already award-winning program is insufficient on its own.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=19582 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 noted that since the petitioner failed step 1, a final merits determination was not required, but observed that aggregate review of the evidence supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated 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 noted that since the petitioner failed step 1, a final merits determination was not required, but observed that aggregate review of the evidence supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=19584 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the director, finding that the record lacked evidence that the petitioner's duties as a referee involved judging the work of others as required by the plain language of the criterion. Without evidence that he awarded points or exercised judgment in choosing a winner, officiating a match is insufficient.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the director, finding that the record lacked evidence that the petitioner's duties as a referee involved judging the work of others as required by the plain language of the criterion. Without evidence that he awarded points or exercised judgment in choosing a winner, officiating a match is insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=19581 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The plain language of the criterion requires the petitioner himself to be the named award recipient. Awards received by athletes the petitioner coached do not satisfy criterion (i). The petitioner's own athletic awards predate the petition by ten years, lack primary evidence, and are not related to his prospective employment as an instructor.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The plain language of the criterion requires the petitioner himself to be the named award recipient. Awards received by athletes the petitioner coached do not satisfy criterion (i). The petitioner's own athletic awards predate the petition by ten years, lack primary evidence, and are not related to his prospective employment as an instructor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=19579 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner made only a passing reference without substantive discussion, abandoning the claim. The record supports the director's determination that the petitioner's role as a volunteer and assistant coach was neither leading within the hierarchy nor critical in its impact on the organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner made only a passing reference without substantive discussion, abandoning the claim. The record supports the director's determination that the petitioner's role as a volunteer and assistant coach was neither leading within the hierarchy nor critical in its impact on the organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=19583 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than that of a U.S. worker with the same qualifications
What the decision said
The director found this prong not met, but AAO declined to reach it because the director's analysis discussed evidence belonging to a different applicant.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The director found this prong not met, but AAO declined to reach it because the director's analysis discussed evidence belonging to a different applicant.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-31_02_B5203; source_row=19578 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the petitioner's letters of support were conclusory and uncorroborated, lacking documentary evidence that her seminar materials, assessment tools, or teaching contributions had measurably influenced the field of bilingual French education as a whole. The petitioner's qualifications and experience, while creditable, did not demonstrate the requisite national impact beyond her immediate students and school.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the petitioner's letters of support were conclusory and uncorroborated, lacking documentary evidence that her seminar materials, assessment tools, or teaching contributions had measurably influenced the field of bilingual French education as a whole. The petitioner's qualifications and experience, while creditable, did not demonstrate the requisite national impact beyond her immediate students and school.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-31_01_B5203; source_row=19575 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c