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 19581–19590
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
Why AAO was not persuaded
The NYC Bar policy recommendations document does not name or cite the petitioner and therefore does not demonstrate that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for any distinguished organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The NYC Bar policy recommendations document does not name or cite the petitioner and therefore does not demonstrate that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for any distinguished organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-15_02_B2203; source_row=18619 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
New facts requirement for motion to reopen
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's new MBA was obtained after the petition was filed and cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Evidence on the membership and leading/critical role criteria was not new or not responsive to the June 25, 2014 decision's findings. The petitioner wholly failed to address the scholarly articles criterion and the NYSDOT explanation.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's new MBA was obtained after the petition was filed and cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Evidence on the membership and leading/critical role criteria was not new or not responsive to the June 25, 2014 decision's findings. The petitioner wholly failed to address the scholarly articles criterion and the NYSDOT explanation. Thus, the petitioner did not meet the heavy burden required to reopen the proceedings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-15_02_B2203; source_row=18616 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
The petitioner submitted two articles about her published in major Honduran media, both relating to her work as an actress, with sufficient evidence that both publications constitute major media in Honduras.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted two articles about her published in major Honduran media, both relating to her work as an actress, with sufficient evidence that both publications constitute major media in Honduras.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-15_01_B2203; source_row=18611 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the petitioner showed a leading role in one qualifying film, she failed to show leading or critical roles for multiple organizations with a distinguished reputation. The TV series at issue lacked evidence of a distinguished reputation (only award nominations, no wins, no critical consensus). Other projects lacked supporting documentation of distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the petitioner showed a leading role in one qualifying film, she failed to show leading or critical roles for multiple organizations with a distinguished reputation. The TV series at issue lacked evidence of a distinguished reputation (only award nominations, no wins, no critical consensus). Other projects lacked supporting documentation of distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_02_B2203; source_row=18605 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The director found this criterion met, but AAO disagreed. The evidence only showed an invitation to serve as a juror, not actual jury service. Participation in a panel discussion did not involve judging the work of others.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The director found this criterion met, but AAO disagreed. The evidence only showed an invitation to serve as a juror, not actual jury service. Participation in a panel discussion did not involve judging the work of others.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_02_B2203; source_row=18604 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
Though the petitioner earned over $250,000 annually, she failed to provide adequate comparative data demonstrating this is a 'high salary in relation to others in the field.' The wage comparison documents were incomplete or inapposite, and evidence that she earned above the union minimum or average salary was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Though the petitioner earned over $250,000 annually, she failed to provide adequate comparative data demonstrating this is a 'high salary in relation to others in the field.' The wage comparison documents were incomplete or inapposite, and evidence that she earned above the union minimum or average salary was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_02_B2203; source_row=18606 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's union membership required accumulating a minimum number of professional engagements, which does not constitute 'outstanding achievements.' Additionally, she failed to show that recognized national or international experts judged the members' achievements. A second association offered no membership requirement evidence at all.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's union membership required accumulating a minimum number of professional engagements, which does not constitute 'outstanding achievements.' Additionally, she failed to show that recognized national or international experts judged the members' achievements. A second association offered no membership requirement evidence at all.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_02_B2203; source_row=18602 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO disagreed with the director's characterization of the judging evidence as placing the petitioner in the top of the field, but ultimately agreed the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the director's characterization of the judging evidence as placing the petitioner in the top of the field, but ultimately agreed the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner's moderate peer review activities, limited publication record compared to his own references, lack of citation impact, and contributions confined to individual companies rather than the field as a whole were insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_01_B2203; source_row=18600 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding, concluding that the regulation requires evidence of roles for organizations in the plural, and the petitioner demonstrated a qualifying critical role and distinguished reputation for only one organization.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding, concluding that the regulation requires evidence of roles for organizations in the plural, and the petitioner demonstrated a qualifying critical role and distinguished reputation for only one organization. For the other organizations, either the distinguished reputation was not established with independent objective evidence or the evidence of a leading/critical role was insufficiently specific.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_01_B2203; source_row=18599 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the petitioner had been put on notice of the deficiency via RFE and failed to respond. The contributions discussed in the final merits determination did not demonstrate impact 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 +
The AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the petitioner had been put on notice of the deficiency via RFE and failed to respond. The contributions discussed in the final merits determination did not demonstrate impact on the field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-14_01_B2203; source_row=18597 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c