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.
Ability to pay proffered wage in 2007 (priority-date year)
Why the evidence was persuasive
Prorated proffered wage from the priority date to year-end was $31,126; documented wages paid to the beneficiary after the priority date were $31,791. The Arizona address on the paystubs explained the beneficiary's absence from California wage reports, so that absence was not a credibility-undermining inconsistency.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Prorated proffered wage from the priority date to year-end was $31,126; documented wages paid to the beneficiary after the priority date were $31,791. The Arizona address on the paystubs explained the beneficiary's absence from California wage reports, so that absence was not a credibility-undermining inconsistency.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-29_01_B5203; source_row=15275 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record shows that the Journal of Plant Genomics invited the petitioner to serve as Guest Lead Editor for a special issue of his choice, satisfying the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The record shows that the Journal of Plant Genomics invited the petitioner to serve as Guest Lead Editor for a special issue of his choice, satisfying the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-20_01_B2203; source_row=15206 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO found the totality of evidence — including hundreds of independent citations, an editorial invitation from a scientific journal, corroborated expert letters, and government awards — sufficient to establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field with sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the totality of evidence — including hundreds of independent citations, an editorial invitation from a scientific journal, corroborated expert letters, and government awards — sufficient to establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field with sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-20_01_B2203; source_row=15209 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The three articles were published after the petition filing date and thus could not establish eligibility at filing. Even if considered, the petitioner relied solely on self-promotional evidence from the publications themselves and Wikipedia to establish major media status, which lacked independent corroboration. Additionally, publications not in a predominant national language were not shown to constitute major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The three articles were published after the petition filing date and thus could not establish eligibility at filing. Even if considered, the petitioner relied solely on self-promotional evidence from the publications themselves and Wikipedia to establish major media status, which lacked independent corroboration. Additionally, publications not in a predominant national language were not shown to constitute major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-24_02_B2203; source_row=15255 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
The supporting letters and affidavits did not specifically identify any original coaching methods and described only general coaching skills. Evidence of the petitioner's involvement with the club and competitive successes therein did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of table tennis as a whole, as opposed to contributions to one organization.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The supporting letters and affidavits did not specifically identify any original coaching methods and described only general coaching skills. Evidence of the petitioner's involvement with the club and competitive successes therein did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of table tennis as a whole, as opposed to contributions to one organization. The letters were largely conclusory and lacked specificity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-24_02_B2203; source_row=15256 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner did not personally receive the awards at issue. Student competitive success does not constitute the petitioner's own receipt of prizes. The club-of-the-year award went to the entity, not the petitioner, and the development coach of the year award went to a named individual, not the petitioner. Evidence regarding the petitioner's association with the students was also internally inconsistent.
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 personally receive the awards at issue. Student competitive success does not constitute the petitioner's own receipt of prizes. The club-of-the-year award went to the entity, not the petitioner, and the development coach of the year award went to a named individual, not the petitioner. Evidence regarding the petitioner's association with the students was also internally inconsistent.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-24_02_B2203; source_row=15253 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner did not submit an organizational chart or documentation from the team itself showing a leading or critical role. Being one of over twenty athletes on a winning team was insufficient to establish a leading or critical role. As a coach, the petitioner did not show how many other coaches the team employed or that his duties were uniquely significant.…
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 an organizational chart or documentation from the team itself showing a leading or critical role. Being one of over twenty athletes on a winning team was insufficient to establish a leading or critical role. As a coach, the petitioner did not show how many other coaches the team employed or that his duties were uniquely significant. Additionally, the regulation requires evidence of leading or critical roles for organizations in the plural, and the petitioner only addressed one organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-24_02_B2203; source_row=15257 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
judging the work of others in the same or allied field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The only submitted letter was unsigned and thus lacked evidentiary force. The letter also failed to identify specific proposals reviewed, their dates, or the authors' names. No documentary evidence corroborated the claimed judging activity.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The only submitted letter was unsigned and thus lacked evidentiary force. The letter also failed to identify specific proposals reviewed, their dates, or the authors' names. No documentary evidence corroborated the claimed judging activity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-24_03_B2203; source_row=15265 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c