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 18741–18750
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organization
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the director's finding that the beneficiary performed in a leading role but still upheld the overall denial. The petitioner submitted no corroborating documentation of the beneficiary's role, and abandoned the distinguished reputation issue on appeal by failing to address it. Website screenshots did not show distinguished reputation for either employer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the director's finding that the beneficiary performed in a leading role but still upheld the overall denial. The petitioner submitted no corroborating documentation of the beneficiary's role, and abandoned the distinguished reputation issue on appeal by failing to address it. Website screenshots did not show distinguished reputation for either employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19516 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The beneficiary is a mechanical engineer, not a performing artist, so the plain language of criterion (x) does not apply. Comparable evidence was also unavailable because the petitioner failed to establish the criteria do not readily apply. No documentary evidence supported the sales and profit assertions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary is a mechanical engineer, not a performing artist, so the plain language of criterion (x) does not apply. Comparable evidence was also unavailable because the petitioner failed to establish the criteria do not readily apply. No documentary evidence supported the sales and profit assertions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19518 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The W-2 and paystub postdated the 2009 petition filing and could not establish eligibility. The BLS data submitted on appeal also reflected 2013 figures. The petitioner provided no documentary evidence of the beneficiary's actual 2009 salary, and average salary statistics do not satisfy the requirement to show a high salary relative to others in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The W-2 and paystub postdated the 2009 petition filing and could not establish eligibility. The BLS data submitted on appeal also reflected 2013 figures. The petitioner provided no documentary evidence of the beneficiary's actual 2009 salary, and average salary statistics do not satisfy the requirement to show a high salary relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19517 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The article submitted was about a blow molding machine and never mentioned the beneficiary, failing the requirement that published material be 'about the alien.' Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate the website constitutes major media, and the article lacked required translation certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The article submitted was about a blow molding machine and never mentioned the beneficiary, failing the requirement that published material be 'about the alien.' Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate the website constitutes major media, and the article lacked required translation certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19514 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
A patent shows originality but not major significance in the field. The reference letters about the blow molding machine contained identical or near-identical language, undermining their credibility, and none demonstrated the machine's broad impact or influence on the field as a whole.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
A patent shows originality but not major significance in the field. The reference letters about the blow molding machine contained identical or near-identical language, undermining their credibility, and none demonstrated the machine's broad impact or influence on the field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19515 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the petitioner failed Step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate evidence 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 full final merits determination because the petitioner failed Step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate evidence does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-14_01_B2203; source_row=19519 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
one-time major internationally recognized award
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's ITTF ranking postdated the filing date and could not be considered; even if considered, a high national ranking does not demonstrate a major internationally recognized award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's ITTF ranking postdated the filing date and could not be considered; even if considered, a high national ranking does not demonstrate a major internationally recognized award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-13_01_B2203; source_row=19509 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
Even assuming the rankings are relevant to the contributions criterion, they do not establish contributions of major significance sufficient to satisfy criterion (v).
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Even assuming the rankings are relevant to the contributions criterion, they do not establish contributions of major significance sufficient to satisfy criterion (v).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-13_01_B2203; source_row=19513 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why the evidence was persuasive
The director concluded the petitioner meets criterion (i) for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and the AAO did not disturb this finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The director concluded the petitioner meets criterion (i) for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and the AAO did not disturb this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-07-13_01_B2203; source_row=19510 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c