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 beneficiary's W-2 wages were below the proffered wage every year from 2001–2007, generating a cumulative deficiency of $466,000. The sole proprietor's AGI was also insufficient in most years to cover household expenses plus the wage gap. Investment accounts did not clearly provide liquifiable funds sufficient to bridge the deficiency, and the petitioner's household expense figures were inconsistent and understated.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary's W-2 wages were below the proffered wage every year from 2001–2007, generating a cumulative deficiency of $466,000. The sole proprietor's AGI was also insufficient in most years to cover household expenses plus the wage gap. Investment accounts did not clearly provide liquifiable funds sufficient to bridge the deficiency, and the petitioner's household expense figures were inconsistent and understated. The totality of circumstances, including multiple pending petitions, did not parallel the Sonegawa situation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_07_B5203; source_row=14037 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
Because the petitioner made only a passing reference without substantive argument and failed to identify an incorrect application of law or fact, the AAO considered the issue abandoned.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Because the petitioner made only a passing reference without substantive argument and failed to identify an incorrect application of law or fact, the AAO considered the issue abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_02_B2203; source_row=14031 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the petitioner submitted evidence meeting the plain language requirements of this criterion and departed from the director's determination.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the petitioner submitted evidence meeting the plain language requirements of this criterion and departed from the director's determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_02_B2203; source_row=14030 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The evidence does not show how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from other coaches or that he was responsible for the organization's success. Further, the regulation's plural 'organizations' requires more than one distinguished organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The evidence does not show how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from other coaches or that he was responsible for the organization's success. Further, the regulation's plural 'organizations' requires more than one distinguished organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_01_B2203; source_row=14024 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the beneficiary intends to work as a coach (not as a competitive fencer), and competing and coaching are different areas of expertise, the petitioner must demonstrate extraordinary ability as a coach. The 'recent acclaim' nexus exception does not apply because the beneficiary stopped competing in 2004.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the beneficiary intends to work as a coach (not as a competitive fencer), and competing and coaching are different areas of expertise, the petitioner must demonstrate extraordinary ability as a coach. The 'recent acclaim' nexus exception does not apply because the beneficiary stopped competing in 2004.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_01_B2203; source_row=14026 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO concluded that the letters detailing the beneficiary's coaching of champion fencers, supported by documentary evidence of their awards and rankings, were sufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance as a coach.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO concluded that the letters detailing the beneficiary's coaching of champion fencers, supported by documentary evidence of their awards and rankings, were sufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance as a coach.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-28_01_B2203; source_row=14023 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The expert letters indicate the petitioner played a critical role in advertising campaigns, not for organizations or establishments as required by the criterion. Many letters contained nearly identical or indistinguishable language reducing their evidentiary weight. The only letters with original content still failed to show a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The expert letters indicate the petitioner played a critical role in advertising campaigns, not for organizations or establishments as required by the criterion. Many letters contained nearly identical or indistinguishable language reducing their evidentiary weight. The only letters with original content still failed to show a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=14018 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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
The submitted evidence lacks titles, dates, and authors as required by the regulation. The materials are not the type of titled, authored published works contemplated by the criterion, and the translation certifications are deficient. Furthermore, the articles are about the Look of the Year contest, not about the petitioner specifically.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted evidence lacks titles, dates, and authors as required by the regulation. The materials are not the type of titled, authored published works contemplated by the criterion, and the translation certifications are deficient. Furthermore, the articles are about the Look of the Year contest, not about the petitioner specifically.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=14016 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found no improper application of regulations by the director. Published material and leading or critical roles are covered under separate criteria. Counsel failed to explain why appearing in advertising campaigns constitutes an original contribution of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found no improper application of regulations by the director. Published material and leading or critical roles are covered under separate criteria. Counsel failed to explain why appearing in advertising campaigns constitutes an original contribution of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=14017 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c