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.
The petitioner's salary comparison to the Level 4 prevailing wage in a single Florida county is not an appropriate basis to establish 'high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.' The correct comparison must be to others at the top of the field, not to the majority of fully competent workers in a single locality.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's salary comparison to the Level 4 prevailing wage in a single Florida county is not an appropriate basis to establish 'high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.' The correct comparison must be to others at the top of the field, not to the majority of fully competent workers in a single locality.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-27_03_B2203; source_row=15958 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other9 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted articles merely cited to the petitioner's work but were not 'about' the petitioner or his work as required by the regulation. Articles about others' work that briefly mention the petitioner do not qualify under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted articles merely cited to the petitioner's work but were not 'about' the petitioner or his work as required by the regulation. Articles about others' work that briefly mention the petitioner do not qualify under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-27_03_B2203; source_row=15954 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the director's finding because the 'monitor' role was administrative rather than a judging capacity, and the after-the-fact statements about the contests lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence on letterhead and did not identify the artists judged.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the director's finding because the 'monitor' role was administrative rather than a judging capacity, and the after-the-fact statements about the contests lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence on letterhead and did not identify the artists judged.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-26_01_B2203; source_row=15924 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed, finding the letters were vague, did not provide specific examples of impact on the field at large, and that benefiting individual clients or companies does not establish major significance in the field. AAO also declined to consider evidence post-dating the filing or first submitted on appeal.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed, finding the letters were vague, did not provide specific examples of impact on the field at large, and that benefiting individual clients or companies does not establish major significance in the field. AAO also declined to consider evidence post-dating the filing or first submitted on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-26_01_B2203; source_row=15925 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the director's finding, concluding the certificates reflected only local, regional, or institutional recognition; documentary inconsistencies with the sponsor's letter were unresolved; translations were uncertified; and self-promotional materials from the awarding association did not establish national or international recognition.
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 finding, concluding the certificates reflected only local, regional, or institutional recognition; documentary inconsistencies with the sponsor's letter were unresolved; translations were uncertified; and self-promotional materials from the awarding association did not establish national or international recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-26_01_B2203; source_row=15921 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed, finding the articles were not about the beneficiary, lacked required translations, dates, or authors, and that no objective evidence established the publications as major media. AAO rejected the comparable evidence argument because the ten criteria readily applied to the beneficiary's occupation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed, finding the articles were not about the beneficiary, lacked required translations, dates, or authors, and that no objective evidence established the publications as major media. AAO rejected the comparable evidence argument because the ten criteria readily applied to the beneficiary's occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-26_01_B2203; source_row=15923 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered
Why the evidence was persuasive
On the totality of the evidence, including a $500,000 annual salary, the AAO concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered and qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
On the totality of the evidence, including a $500,000 annual salary, the AAO concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered and qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-26_01_B5203; source_row=15928 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c