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 21791–21800
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
None of the submitted articles qualified because they were not about the petitioner (merely mentioning him in passing), lacked required identifying information (author, date), lacked full English translations, or lacked evidence the publication qualified as major media. The plain language of the regulation requires material 'about the alien.'
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
None of the submitted articles qualified because they were not about the petitioner (merely mentioning him in passing), lacked required identifying information (author, date), lacked full English translations, or lacked evidence the publication qualified as major media. The plain language of the regulation requires material 'about the alien.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_03_B2203; source_row=16095 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
Letters praised the petitioner's expertise but failed to provide documentary evidence that his contributions were both original and of major significance. Citation data showed minimal independent citations (no article cited more than twice). Participation in conferences and drafting regulations in collaboration with others does not automatically constitute 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 +
Letters praised the petitioner's expertise but failed to provide documentary evidence that his contributions were both original and of major significance. Citation data showed minimal independent citations (no article cited more than twice). Participation in conferences and drafting regulations in collaboration with others does not automatically constitute original contributions of major significance. Unique knowledge alone is insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_03_B2203; source_row=16097 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's finding that this criterion was met. Contributing visual effects software to films is not the same as displaying one's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Further, the beneficiary no longer works in the motion picture field, having moved to digital garment technology for online retail.
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 finding that this criterion was met. Contributing visual effects software to films is not the same as displaying one's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Further, the beneficiary no longer works in the motion picture field, having moved to digital garment technology for online retail.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_02_B2203; source_row=16090 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
This criterion applies to the performing arts, and the beneficiary is a computer graphics software developer, not a performing artist. Even if applicable, the commercial success of the films was not primarily attributable to the beneficiary's specific contributions among hundreds of contributors.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
This criterion applies to the performing arts, and the beneficiary is a computer graphics software developer, not a performing artist. Even if applicable, the commercial success of the films was not primarily attributable to the beneficiary's specific contributions among hundreds of contributors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_02_B2203; source_row=16093 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 in relation to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence (such as payroll records or tax forms) of the claimed $80,000 salary and provided no comparative earnings data to show the beneficiary's salary 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 failed to provide documentary evidence (such as payroll records or tax forms) of the claimed $80,000 salary and provided no comparative earnings data to show the beneficiary's salary was high relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_02_B2203; source_row=16092 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed to show the beneficiary held a leading or critical role for the company as a whole, rather than just for specific projects. No organizational charts were submitted to place her role in context relative to the company's hierarchy. Additionally, the regulation requires distinguished organizations in the plural, and the petitioner only demonstrated a role at one organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner failed to show the beneficiary held a leading or critical role for the company as a whole, rather than just for specific projects. No organizational charts were submitted to place her role in context relative to the company's hierarchy. Additionally, the regulation requires distinguished organizations in the plural, and the petitioner only demonstrated a role at one organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_02_B2203; source_row=16091 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's evidence—patent applications, purchase agreements, conference participation, and expert letters—did not demonstrate that the beneficiary's garment visualization technologies had major significance to the field as a whole at the time of filing, as opposed to impact limited to the company and its two clients. Post-filing evidence was disregarded. Letters of support alone could not establish field-wide impact.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's evidence—patent applications, purchase agreements, conference participation, and expert letters—did not demonstrate that the beneficiary's garment visualization technologies had major significance to the field as a whole at the time of filing, as opposed to impact limited to the company and its two clients. Post-filing evidence was disregarded. Letters of support alone could not establish field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_02_B2203; source_row=16089 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO declined to consider this criterion because the petitioner failed to claim it before the director during the RFE response, and a petitioner may not raise a previously unclaimed eligibility criterion for the first time on appeal. Additionally, the evidence submitted postdated the petition's priority date.
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 this criterion because the petitioner failed to claim it before the director during the RFE response, and a petitioner may not raise a previously unclaimed eligibility criterion for the first time on appeal. Additionally, the evidence submitted postdated the petition's priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_01_B2203; source_row=16082 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding because all of the evidence associated with this criterion postdated the petition's priority date of February 24, 2008, and a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing.
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 favorable finding because all of the evidence associated with this criterion postdated the petition's priority date of February 24, 2008, and a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-03-22_01_B2203; source_row=16081 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c