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 22691–22700
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 expert letters described skills and abilities but did not specifically identify the petitioner's impact on the industry as a whole or provide specific examples of original contributions of major significance. Vague, solicited letters are insufficient.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The expert letters described skills and abilities but did not specifically identify the petitioner's impact on the industry as a whole or provide specific examples of original contributions of major significance. Vague, solicited letters are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=14978 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
None of the submitted evidence demonstrated actual performance as a judge; the documents only showed selection as a juror, which is insufficient under the plain language requiring evidence of actual service.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
None of the submitted evidence demonstrated actual performance as a judge; the documents only showed selection as a juror, which is insufficient under the plain language requiring evidence of actual service.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=14977 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
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the translation was defective (converting pesos to dollars), the salary scale was an extract/summary translation rather than a full translation as required, and even if accepted the basic average salary is not the proper comparator—the regulation requires comparison with the highest salaries of those performing similar work in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the translation was defective (converting pesos to dollars), the salary scale was an extract/summary translation rather than a full translation as required, and even if accepted the basic average salary is not the proper comparator—the regulation requires comparison with the highest salaries of those performing similar work in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=14981 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest served to substantially greater degree than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the petitioner had left multiple research positions prematurely and without explanation, failed to respond to the AAO's notice seeking evidence of continued employment, and therefore could not establish that his future work would benefit the national interest.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the petitioner had left multiple research positions prematurely and without explanation, failed to respond to the AAO's notice seeking evidence of continued employment, and therefore could not establish that his future work would benefit the national interest. The claim that the labor certification process would disrupt critical work was undercut by the petitioner's own unexplained departures from research posts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_02_B5203; source_row=14990 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The field of endeavor for which classification is sought is martial arts instruction and coaching, not competitive taekwondo. Awards won as a competitor in taekwondo tournaments do not satisfy the awards criterion for purposes of establishing extraordinary ability as an instructor or coach. The expert letter on motion likewise addresses the petitioner as a competitor, not as an instructor.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The field of endeavor for which classification is sought is martial arts instruction and coaching, not competitive taekwondo. Awards won as a competitor in taekwondo tournaments do not satisfy the awards criterion for purposes of establishing extraordinary ability as an instructor or coach. The expert letter on motion likewise addresses the petitioner as a competitor, not as an instructor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_03_B2203; source_row=14991 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 salary evidence submitted on motion consisted of checks dated 2010 and 2011, which post-date the petition's July 27, 2007 filing date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and a petition cannot be approved based on facts arising after filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The salary evidence submitted on motion consisted of checks dated 2010 and 2011, which post-date the petition's July 27, 2007 filing date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and a petition cannot be approved based on facts arising after filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_03_B2203; source_row=14994 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed because the income certificates did not show the income was for film direction, the petitioner provided no comparative salary baseline for Korean directors, and the witness's '2 to 10 times' claim lacked documentary support.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed because the income certificates did not show the income was for film direction, the petitioner provided no comparative salary baseline for Korean directors, and the witness's '2 to 10 times' claim lacked documentary support.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_03_B5203; source_row=14998 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO acknowledged that the petitioner's research area involves Shiga toxin-induced disease and antibiotic resistance, and did not contest that this area has substantial intrinsic merit.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
The AAO acknowledged that the petitioner's research area involves Shiga toxin-induced disease and antibiotic resistance, and did not contest that this area has substantial intrinsic merit.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_02_B5203; source_row=14988 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Reference letters discussed artistic collaborations and skills but failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work substantially impacted the industry or significantly influenced other actors. The solo show review was lukewarm at best. Unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Reference letters discussed artistic collaborations and skills but failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work substantially impacted the industry or significantly influenced other actors. The solo show review was lukewarm at best. Unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-23_04_B2203; source_row=15007 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c