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 23151–23160
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
Articles previously submitted lacked authors, dates, or did not qualify as professional or major trade publications. New articles submitted with the motion were either previously filed or dated after the petition filing date, and the Everest Times publisher was not shown to be major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Articles previously submitted lacked authors, dates, or did not qualify as professional or major trade publications. New articles submitted with the motion were either previously filed or dated after the petition filing date, and the Everest Times publisher was not shown to be major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_01_B2203; source_row=14444 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's role as a referee in the February 2005 Asian Karate Championship did not clearly demonstrate judging of competitors' work (assigning points or determining winners). Evidence failed to identify individuals refereed or specific categories assigned, and did not show that serving as a referee equated to judging. Post-filing evidence was not considered.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's role as a referee in the February 2005 Asian Karate Championship did not clearly demonstrate judging of competitors' work (assigning points or determining winners). Evidence failed to identify individuals refereed or specific categories assigned, and did not show that serving as a referee equated to judging. Post-filing evidence was not considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_01_B2203; source_row=14445 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reaffirmed that the three-year Indian degree plus NIIT certificate does not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree, and counsel on motion did not contest this finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed that the three-year Indian degree plus NIIT certificate does not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree, and counsel on motion did not contest this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_01_B5203; source_row=14450 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the petitioner did not establish ability to pay because its accounting of multiple pending petitions was incomplete and flawed (omitting withdrawn/adjusted beneficiaries during their pendency), bank balances and lines of credit are not proper evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), and Sonegawa-type factors did not apply.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the petitioner did not establish ability to pay because its accounting of multiple pending petitions was incomplete and flawed (omitting withdrawn/adjusted beneficiaries during their pendency), bank balances and lines of credit are not proper evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), and Sonegawa-type factors did not apply.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_05_B5203; source_row=14460 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_03_B2203; source_row=14458 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO declined to consider the petitioner's accomplishments as an athlete to establish eligibility as a coach, as he had not demonstrated recent acclaim as an athlete.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider the petitioner's accomplishments as an athlete to establish eligibility as a coach, as he had not demonstrated recent acclaim as an athlete.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_03_B2203; source_row=14456 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
What the decision said
The petitioner did not raise any issues relating to the AAO's October 4, 2010 findings on the display of work criterion in the instant motion; accordingly the AAO considered it abandoned.
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 raise any issues relating to the AAO's October 4, 2010 findings on the display of work criterion in the instant motion; accordingly the AAO considered it abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_01_B2203; source_row=14447 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
Counsel's motion heading referenced this criterion but the brief only contained a conclusory statement without any new evidence, legal argument, or factual support. The unsupported assertion did not trigger a full analysis or support reopening or reconsideration.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Counsel's motion heading referenced this criterion but the brief only contained a conclusory statement without any new evidence, legal argument, or factual support. The unsupported assertion did not trigger a full analysis or support reopening or reconsideration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-15_01_B2203; source_row=14446 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. The aggregate evidence did not distinguish him from other working actors and did not show he was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. The aggregate evidence did not distinguish him from other working actors and did not show he was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_05_B2203; source_row=14427 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the director's finding. While Disney has a distinguished reputation, the record did not support that the petitioner's role was critical to the show as a whole, and no supporting documentation such as viewership numbers, ratings, or ad revenues was submitted.…
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. While Disney has a distinguished reputation, the record did not support that the petitioner's role was critical to the show as a whole, and no supporting documentation such as viewership numbers, ratings, or ad revenues was submitted. Furthermore, AAO interpreted the regulation as requiring leading or critical roles for more than one organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation, and the petitioner only showed qualifying evidence for Disney.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_05_B2203; source_row=14425 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c