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 21681–21690
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to reopen — new facts requirement
Why AAO was not persuaded
The motion to reopen contained no new facts; counsel simply resubmitted evidence already in the record. No provision exists for USCIS to grant an extension to await future submissions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The motion to reopen contained no new facts; counsel simply resubmitted evidence already in the record. No provision exists for USCIS to grant an extension to await future submissions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-18_01_B2203; source_row=16226 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner submitted only an employment verification letter with an estimated annual gross salary, which is not primary evidence (paystubs or tax documents) and does not constitute a proper affidavit. The petitioner failed to establish his actual salary, let alone that it was high relative to others in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted only an employment verification letter with an estimated annual gross salary, which is not primary evidence (paystubs or tax documents) and does not constitute a proper affidavit. The petitioner failed to establish his actual salary, let alone that it was high relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16221 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's reference letters praised him for personal and professional traits and described project-level roles but did not establish a leading or critical role for the organizations as a whole. The organizational chart showed the petitioner in a far subordinate position, and evidence failed to distinguish his role from other employees at the organizations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's reference letters praised him for personal and professional traits and described project-level roles but did not establish a leading or critical role for the organizations as a whole. The organizational chart showed the petitioner in a far subordinate position, and evidence failed to distinguish his role from other employees at the organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16220 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's work had not yet demonstrated major significance in the field at the time of filing. Evidence of implementation by a single organization, limited citations (30 total, 2 for the sourcebook), pending projects, and recommendation letters with general statements without specific examples did not rise to the level of original 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 +
The petitioner's work had not yet demonstrated major significance in the field at the time of filing. Evidence of implementation by a single organization, limited citations (30 total, 2 for the sourcebook), pending projects, and recommendation letters with general statements without specific examples did not rise to the level of original contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16217 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because the petitioner submitted books rather than articles. The plain language of the regulation requires authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, not books; moreover, publications by the petitioner's employer organization do not constitute professional or major trade publications or other major media.
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 +
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because the petitioner submitted books rather than articles. The plain language of the regulation requires authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, not books; moreover, publications by the petitioner's employer organization do not constitute professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16218 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Both the director and the AAO found that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that he minimally meets the plain language of the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Both the director and the AAO found that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that he minimally meets the plain language of the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16216 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The director found this criterion not met. On appeal, counsel did not contest the director's finding for the artistic display criterion, so the AAO considered it abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The director found this criterion not met. On appeal, counsel did not contest the director's finding for the artistic display criterion, so the AAO considered it abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16219 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
What the decision said
The director found this criterion not met. On appeal, counsel did not contest the director's finding for the published material criterion, so the AAO considered it abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The director found this criterion not met. On appeal, counsel did not contest the director's finding for the published material criterion, so the AAO considered it abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=16215 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
On de novo review, considering materials submitted on appeal, AAO found it more likely than not that the beneficiary was employed during the alleged time periods.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
On de novo review, considering materials submitted on appeal, AAO found it more likely than not that the beneficiary was employed during the alleged time periods.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B5203; source_row=16224 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
five years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO observed that the time between the beneficiary's November 2002 bachelor's conferral and the June 2007 priority date is less than five years, and some of the experience was with the petitioner in a substantially comparable position, which is excluded under the labor certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO observed that the time between the beneficiary's November 2002 bachelor's conferral and the June 2007 priority date is less than five years, and some of the experience was with the petitioner in a substantially comparable position, which is excluded under the labor certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-04-17_01_B5203; source_row=16225 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c