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
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the support letters lacked specificity about how the petitioner's accomplishments constituted original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole; assertions were largely conclusory or about contributions to individual companies rather than the field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the support letters lacked specificity about how the petitioner's accomplishments constituted original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole; assertions were largely conclusory or about contributions to individual companies rather than the field. Even if the petitioner had shown influence on the use of shorter models, that would only be one contribution, while the regulation requires contributions in the plural.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_02_B2203; source_row=16791 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that press and media coverage and runway/fashion show appearances are a display of a product the petitioner is presenting on behalf of others, not a display of the petitioner's own work. The comparable evidence provision was also unavailable to the petitioner.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that press and media coverage and runway/fashion show appearances are a display of a product the petitioner is presenting on behalf of others, not a display of the petitioner's own work. The comparable evidence provision was also unavailable to the petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_02_B2203; source_row=16792 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the petitioner was not eligible to claim comparable evidence and that counsel failed to explain how appearing in high-profile campaigns is comparable evidence of the petitioner's personal commercial success as measured by box office receipts or record/disk/video sales.
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 petitioner was not eligible to claim comparable evidence and that counsel failed to explain how appearing in high-profile campaigns is comparable evidence of the petitioner's personal commercial success as measured by box office receipts or record/disk/video sales.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_02_B2203; source_row=16795 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO disagreed with the director on de novo review, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his competition awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Counsel's unsupported assertions about the prestige of the competitions were insufficient, and no documentary evidence showed the field recognized these awards at the national or international level.
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 on de novo review, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his competition awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Counsel's unsupported assertions about the prestige of the competitions were insufficient, and no documentary evidence showed the field recognized these awards at the national or international level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_01_B2203; source_row=16785 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record lacked a copy of the membership certificate, so membership was not established. Even assuming membership, the record contained no evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Additionally, counsel's assertion about a second qualifying association (IWSD) was abandoned on appeal. The criterion requires associations in the plural.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record lacked a copy of the membership certificate, so membership was not established. Even assuming membership, the record contained no evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Additionally, counsel's assertion about a second qualifying association (IWSD) was abandoned on appeal. The criterion requires associations in the plural.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_01_B2203; source_row=16786 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding because all submitted comparison data was limited to a particular geographic area of California rather than the field as a whole, and salary.com data compared only to 'typical' compensation.
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 because all submitted comparison data was limited to a particular geographic area of California rather than the field as a whole, and salary.com data compared only to 'typical' compensation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_03_B2203; source_row=16801 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO conducted its own final merits review and concluded that the petitioner's minimal publication/citation record, pending patents, vague reference letters, and above-average local salary do not place him at the very top of the software engineering field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted its own final merits review and concluded that the petitioner's minimal publication/citation record, pending patents, vague reference letters, and above-average local salary do not place him at the very top of the software engineering field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_03_B2203; source_row=16802 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the letters relied on by petitioner did not adequately establish that the letter writers were authorized to speak for the relevant companies, and that being critical to the success of ad campaigns does not satisfy the criterion. Evidence from a key company was not accompanied by documentation from someone in a position to represent that company.
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 letters relied on by petitioner did not adequately establish that the letter writers were authorized to speak for the relevant companies, and that being critical to the success of ad campaigns does not satisfy the criterion. Evidence from a key company was not accompanied by documentation from someone in a position to represent that company.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_02_B2203; source_row=16793 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 reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold Step 1 requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold Step 1 requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-19_02_B2203; source_row=16796 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c