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.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
This criterion applies to artists, not athletes. Comparable evidence was unavailable because the standard criteria readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. Even accepting comparable evidence, the performances of coached athletes are not a display of the coach's work in a comparable sense to artistic exhibitions.
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 artists, not athletes. Comparable evidence was unavailable because the standard criteria readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. Even accepting comparable evidence, the performances of coached athletes are not a display of the coach's work in a comparable sense to artistic exhibitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_02_B2203; source_row=14513 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
For OAC, the petitioner submitted only a single vague letter that did not constitute a proper affidavit and provided insufficient evidence of a leading/critical role or distinguished reputation. For UGA's team, the petitioner showed a leading/critical role but failed to demonstrate the team's distinguished reputation, as the website screenshots did not show significant NCAA-level success.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
For OAC, the petitioner submitted only a single vague letter that did not constitute a proper affidavit and provided insufficient evidence of a leading/critical role or distinguished reputation. For UGA's team, the petitioner showed a leading/critical role but failed to demonstrate the team's distinguished reputation, as the website screenshots did not show significant NCAA-level success.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_02_B2203; source_row=14514 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
This criterion expressly applies to performing artists and requires box office receipts or sales. The petitioner is an athletic coach, not a performing artist, and submitted no evidence of box office receipts or sales. Comparable evidence was unavailable because the standard criteria readily apply to the petitioner's occupation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
This criterion expressly applies to performing artists and requires box office receipts or sales. The petitioner is an athletic coach, not a performing artist, and submitted no evidence of box office receipts or sales. Comparable evidence was unavailable because the standard criteria readily apply to the petitioner's occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_02_B2203; source_row=14515 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence that his role was leading or critical for any team with a distinguished reputation. His collegiate playing profile showed limited starting time, and he failed to submit statistics differentiating his performance from teammates for professional teams. The AAO also noted the petitioner misrepresented team accomplishments.
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 that his role was leading or critical for any team with a distinguished reputation. His collegiate playing profile showed limited starting time, and he failed to submit statistics differentiating his performance from teammates for professional teams. The AAO also noted the petitioner misrepresented team accomplishments.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_01_B2203; source_row=14506 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,001 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
Multiple submitted articles failed to meet the criterion: one lacked an identified author; a Wikipedia-sourced article was given no weight for reliability reasons; an RIA Novosti article had an incomplete translation, lacked an identified author, and was primarily about a game rather than the petitioner; and other website articles lacked identified authors or evidence of qualifying as major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Multiple submitted articles failed to meet the criterion: one lacked an identified author; a Wikipedia-sourced article was given no weight for reliability reasons; an RIA Novosti article had an incomplete translation, lacked an identified author, and was primarily about a game rather than the petitioner; and other website articles lacked identified authors or evidence of qualifying as major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_01_B2203; source_row=14505 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,001 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner submitted contracts but failed to provide a proper basis for comparison showing his compensation was significantly high relative to others in the field. Prevailing wage data from Georgia for 'Athletes and Sports Competitors' was not an appropriate comparator for professional basketball players in Greece, Russia, or the United States.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted contracts but failed to provide a proper basis for comparison showing his compensation was significantly high relative to others in the field. Prevailing wage data from Georgia for 'Athletes and Sports Competitors' was not an appropriate comparator for professional basketball players in Greece, Russia, or the United States.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_01_B2203; source_row=14507 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
Petitioner's earnings fell well below Level 3 and Level 4 prevailing wages and the upper pay levels for comparable Sales Training and Regional Sales Managers, so he failed to demonstrate a high salary in relation 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 +
Petitioner's earnings fell well below Level 3 and Level 4 prevailing wages and the upper pay levels for comparable Sales Training and Regional Sales Managers, so he failed to demonstrate a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_03_B2203; source_row=14520 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original business-related contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found no evidence that petitioner's training programs, manuals, or product expertise had impact beyond his employer or significantly influenced the field at large. Contributions limited to one company do not equate to 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 +
AAO found no evidence that petitioner's training programs, manuals, or product expertise had impact beyond his employer or significantly influenced the field at large. Contributions limited to one company do not equate to contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_03_B2203; source_row=14518 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
Information about the parent company does not demonstrate distinguished reputation of the immediate employer. Additionally, the regulation requires evidence of leading/critical roles for more than one distinguished organization, which petitioner did not provide.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Information about the parent company does not demonstrate distinguished reputation of the immediate employer. Additionally, the regulation requires evidence of leading/critical roles for more than one distinguished organization, which petitioner did not provide.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_03_B2203; source_row=14519 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The awards reflect institutional recognition from the petitioner's employer, not nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Many awards postdated filing and could not be considered, and there was no evidence of 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 +
The awards reflect institutional recognition from the petitioner's employer, not nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Many awards postdated filing and could not be considered, and there was no evidence of national or international recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-24_03_B2203; source_row=14517 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c