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 21771–21780
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
properly executed Form G-28 with appeal
Why AAO was not persuaded
Representative submitted only a copy of a previously filed G-28 and failed to respond to the AAO's request for a new G-28 within 15 days.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Representative submitted only a copy of a previously filed G-28 and failed to respond to the AAO's request for a new G-28 within 15 days.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-27_02_B5203; source_row=16124 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of her awards, such as national or widespread coverage. The awards were not commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes. A new article submitted on appeal was not considered because the deficiency was identified in the RFE and the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence in response.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of her awards, such as national or widespread coverage. The awards were not commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes. A new article submitted on appeal was not considered because the deficiency was identified in the RFE and the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence in response.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16111 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The criterion explicitly requires evidence relating to the performing arts; the petitioner is a visual/fine artist and her painting sales do not qualify. The comparable evidence argument also fails because the petitioner did not demonstrate the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. The high remuneration criterion was raised for the first time on appeal and was not considered.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The criterion explicitly requires evidence relating to the performing arts; the petitioner is a visual/fine artist and her painting sales do not qualify. The comparable evidence argument also fails because the petitioner did not demonstrate the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. The high remuneration criterion was raised for the first time on appeal and was not considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO withdrew the director's affirmative finding. None of the three letters established that the petitioner actually participated in a formal judging capacity. The letters alluded to her being a 'savvy judge of art' or implied judging duties without directly stating formal judging of others' work in the same or allied field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the director's affirmative finding. None of the three letters established that the petitioner actually participated in a formal judging capacity. The letters alluded to her being a 'savvy judge of art' or implied judging duties without directly stating formal judging of others' work in the same or allied field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16113 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
None of the expert letters identified what was original about the petitioner's work or described how her originality impacted the field. Vague, solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or explain their impact on the field are insufficient.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
None of the expert letters identified what was original about the petitioner's work or described how her originality impacted the field. Vague, solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or explain their impact on the field are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16114 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter cited an increase in enrollment in the art program, not a critical role for the university as a whole. The record lacked evidence of the university's distinguished reputation beyond counsel's unsupported assertions. Additionally, the regulation requires performance in a leading or critical role for organizations in the plural, and the petitioner only claimed one organization.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letter cited an increase in enrollment in the art program, not a critical role for the university as a whole. The record lacked evidence of the university's distinguished reputation beyond counsel's unsupported assertions. Additionally, the regulation requires performance in a leading or critical role for organizations in the plural, and the petitioner only claimed one organization. Comparable evidence was also rejected because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16116 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The translation of the first article lacked publication name, date, and author. The publication's national/international reach was supported only by a self-promotional letter from the publisher, which USCIS need not rely upon. The second article lacked independent circulation data to establish major media status, and counsel's unsupported assertions do not constitute evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The translation of the first article lacked publication name, date, and author. The publication's national/international reach was supported only by a self-promotional letter from the publisher, which USCIS need not rely upon. The second article lacked independent circulation data to establish major media status, and counsel's unsupported assertions do not constitute evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-26_01_B2203; source_row=16112 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concludes via EDGE that the combined Indian degrees equate only to a U.S. bachelor's, and the beneficiary lacked the required five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO concludes via EDGE that the combined Indian degrees equate only to a U.S. bachelor's, and the beneficiary lacked the required five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience by the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-25_06_B5203; source_row=16105 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c