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 18901–18910
NIWNIW · Well positionedEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO accepted the director's finding that the proposed benefit is national in scope.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO accepted the director's finding that the proposed benefit is national in scope.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-07_01_B5203; source_row=19341 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWlicense or certificationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
license or certification
license or certification
What the decision said
AAO found that the issue of applicability turns on whether such credentials exist at all, not whether they are required. Because the petitioner did not dispute the director's finding on appeal, the claim was abandoned.
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 issue of applicability turns on whether such credentials exist at all, not whether they are required. Because the petitioner did not dispute the director's finding on appeal, the claim was abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-07_02_B5203; source_row=19345 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the lack of a degree requirement does not make the criterion inapplicable, and because the petitioner did not dispute the director's finding on appeal, the claim was abandoned.
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 lack of a degree requirement does not make the criterion inapplicable, and because the petitioner did not dispute the director's finding on appeal, the claim was abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-07_02_B5203; source_row=19343 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the submitted evidence—including patents, peer letters attesting to unusually high patent activity, and industry awards—sufficiently established recognition for the beneficiary's achievements and significant contributions to the field, and withdrew the director's contrary determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the submitted evidence—including patents, peer letters attesting to unusually high patent activity, and industry awards—sufficiently established recognition for the beneficiary's achievements and significant contributions to the field, and withdrew the director's contrary determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-07_02_B5203; source_row=19348 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
None of the letters identified any original contributions of major significance in any of the indicated fields. Letters described the petitioner's skills and accomplishments but did not explain how her work impacted the field as a whole or was adopted by the industry. Impact beyond one's employer or clients is required. Many certifications were photocopied and defective.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
None of the letters identified any original contributions of major significance in any of the indicated fields. Letters described the petitioner's skills and accomplishments but did not explain how her work impacted the field as a whole or was adopted by the industry. Impact beyond one's employer or clients is required. Many certifications were photocopied and defective. Repetition of regulatory language and conclusory assertions are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-05_02_B2203; source_row=19334 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Authoring books does not fall under the performing arts as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Even treating the evidence as comparable under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), one book's release postdated the filing date, the other's foreign-language sales documentation lacked a compliant translation and did not clearly show actual sales numbers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Authoring books does not fall under the performing arts as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Even treating the evidence as comparable under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), one book's release postdated the filing date, the other's foreign-language sales documentation lacked a compliant translation and did not clearly show actual sales numbers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-05_02_B2203; source_row=19336 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
Post-filing evidence cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing. Online content from an editors association website was not shown to be major media. Book reviews about the petitioner's books (not about the petitioner herself) do not satisfy the criterion. Wikipedia-based evidence is unreliable. Much submitted material was post-dated or lacked required title/date/author information.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Post-filing evidence cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing. Online content from an editors association website was not shown to be major media. Book reviews about the petitioner's books (not about the petitioner herself) do not satisfy the criterion. Wikipedia-based evidence is unreliable. Much submitted material was post-dated or lacked required title/date/author information. Actress-related materials were not about her work in the proposed field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-05_02_B2203; source_row=19333 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner conflated project-level roles with organizational roles. For most entities, the petitioner did not show distinguished reputation or that her role was for the organization as a whole rather than a single episode or production. Unreliable Wikipedia evidence and non-compliant Google Translate translations were disregarded. Multiple entities lacked evidence of distinguished reputation altogether.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner conflated project-level roles with organizational roles. For most entities, the petitioner did not show distinguished reputation or that her role was for the organization as a whole rather than a single episode or production. Unreliable Wikipedia evidence and non-compliant Google Translate translations were disregarded. Multiple entities lacked evidence of distinguished reputation altogether.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-05_02_B2203; source_row=19335 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c