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.
AAO found petitioner did not identify which letter or evidence demonstrated his position within an organization's hierarchy was consistent with a leading role or that his impact was consistent with a critical role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found petitioner did not identify which letter or evidence demonstrated his position within an organization's hierarchy was consistent with a leading role or that his impact was consistent with a critical role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_02_B2203; source_row=19046 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that evidence postdating the filing date cannot establish eligibility, citing Matter of Katigbak, and that petitioner did not establish any manuscripts appeared in publications prior to filing.
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 +
AAO found that evidence postdating the filing date cannot establish eligibility, citing Matter of Katigbak, and that petitioner did not establish any manuscripts appeared in publications prior to filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_02_B2203; source_row=19045 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
AAO found the petitioner's generalized statement about the testimonies failed to explain how the director erred in concluding that the references discussed skill and experience without showing influence at a level consistent with contributions of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner's generalized statement about the testimonies failed to explain how the director erred in concluding that the references discussed skill and experience without showing influence at a level consistent with contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_02_B2203; source_row=19044 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
Why AAO was not persuaded
The director did not err in not addressing this criterion as it was not claimed until appeal. The new evidence on appeal is not persuasive because the supporting letter is unsigned and therefore has no probative value.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The director did not err in not addressing this criterion as it was not claimed until appeal. The new evidence on appeal is not persuasive because the supporting letter is unsigned and therefore has no probative value.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=19038 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 full final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold of at least three criteria, but noted the aggregate evidence would not support eligibility.
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 to satisfy the step-1 threshold of at least three criteria, but noted the aggregate evidence would not support eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=19040 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold, but noted that even in aggregate the evidence does not demonstrate 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 did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold, but noted that even in aggregate the evidence does not demonstrate the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-26_03_B2203; source_row=19052 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding, concluding that the evidence relied upon consisted only of unsubstantiated claims from the awarding entity's own website without independent corroboration, and that the criterion requires more than a single award. Awards given to the petitioner's employer rather than to the petitioner individually also did not qualify.
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 favorable finding, concluding that the evidence relied upon consisted only of unsubstantiated claims from the awarding entity's own website without independent corroboration, and that the criterion requires more than a single award. Awards given to the petitioner's employer rather than to the petitioner individually also did not qualify.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-23_01_B2203; source_row=19021 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO rejected the petitioner's parsing of the regulation, affirming that the criterion applies to visual artists and requires exhibitions or showcases to be artistic in nature. AAO also found that the new claim regarding a Washington exhibition was unsupported and untimely, as there was no evidence the work was displayed prior to filing or at more than one exhibition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO rejected the petitioner's parsing of the regulation, affirming that the criterion applies to visual artists and requires exhibitions or showcases to be artistic in nature. AAO also found that the new claim regarding a Washington exhibition was unsupported and untimely, as there was no evidence the work was displayed prior to filing or at more than one exhibition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-23_01_B2203; source_row=19024 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the director that the submitted materials were images of the petitioner's work in promotional materials, not scholarly articles authored by the petitioner. AAO also rejected the comparable evidence argument, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated the regulatory criteria did not apply to his occupation and that submitting images of work is not comparable to authoring scholarly articles.
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 +
AAO agreed with the director that the submitted materials were images of the petitioner's work in promotional materials, not scholarly articles authored by the petitioner. AAO also rejected the comparable evidence argument, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated the regulatory criteria did not apply to his occupation and that submitting images of work is not comparable to authoring scholarly articles.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-01-23_01_B2203; source_row=19023 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c