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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The reference letters were primarily conclusory and vague, failing to show the lesson plans were original or had a major impact on the sport. Coaching a former No. 1 player did not constitute a contribution of major significance in the field as a whole, especially absent evidence of major prizes or awards won under the beneficiary's tutelage.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters were primarily conclusory and vague, failing to show the lesson plans were original or had a major impact on the sport. Coaching a former No. 1 player did not constitute a contribution of major significance in the field as a whole, especially absent evidence of major prizes or awards won under the beneficiary's tutelage.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B2203; source_row=19165 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 award postdated the petition filing and was regional in nature. The petitioner did not show the award is recognized nationally or internationally or that it rises to the level of a major, internationally recognized award comparable to a Nobel Prize.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The award postdated the petition filing and was regional in nature. The petitioner did not show the award is recognized nationally or internationally or that it rises to the level of a major, internationally recognized award comparable to a Nobel Prize.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B2203; source_row=19163 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Coach of the Year Award postdated the filing and was regional. The beneficiary's player-era certificates and awards were also regional and pertained to competitive athletics rather than coaching, which are not the same area of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Coach of the Year Award postdated the filing and was regional. The beneficiary's player-era certificates and awards were also regional and pertained to competitive athletics rather than coaching, which are not the same area of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B2203; source_row=19164 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although the petitioner did not specifically assert this criterion, the record contained potentially relevant evidence. AAO found the petitioner did not submit specific evidence of the beneficiary's duties or his impact on the organizations, so the criterion was not met.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although the petitioner did not specifically assert this criterion, the record contained potentially relevant evidence. AAO found the petitioner did not submit specific evidence of the beneficiary's duties or his impact on the organizations, so the criterion was not met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B2203; source_row=19166 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
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 failed Step 1, but noted in the alternative that the aggregate evidence did not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
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 failed Step 1, but noted in the alternative that the aggregate evidence did not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B2203; source_row=19167 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Examining wages paid, net income, net current assets, and the totality of circumstances under Sonegawa, AAO concluded the petitioner could not pay the combined $137,550 in proffered wages to the beneficiary and two other sponsored workers in 2013.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Examining wages paid, net income, net current assets, and the totality of circumstances under Sonegawa, AAO concluded the petitioner could not pay the combined $137,550 in proffered wages to the beneficiary and two other sponsored workers in 2013.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_03_B5203; source_row=19173 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO accepted the explanations and supporting documentation submitted in response to its NDI as more likely than not establishing a bona fide job offer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO accepted the explanations and supporting documentation submitted in response to its NDI as more likely than not establishing a bona fide job offer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_03_B5203; source_row=19172 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
successor-in-interest relationship with new parent company
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO identified the successor-in-interest issue as unresolved, noting that if the new acquiring entity is different from the petitioner/labor certification employer, it must establish a valid successor-in-interest relationship. The record lacked sufficient information to resolve this question.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO identified the successor-in-interest issue as unresolved, noting that if the new acquiring entity is different from the petitioner/labor certification employer, it must establish a valid successor-in-interest relationship. The record lacked sufficient information to resolve this question.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=19170 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c