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 motion did not present any new facts or proper legal argument that the prior AAO decision was in error on this criterion; the motion was dismissed as failing to meet motion-to-reconsider requirements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The motion did not present any new facts or proper legal argument that the prior AAO decision was in error on this criterion; the motion was dismissed as failing to meet motion-to-reconsider requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-13_03_B2203; source_row=13680 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 patents submitted citing the petitioner's work were granted after the petition filing date and therefore could not be considered; eligibility must be established at the time of filing. No qualifying new facts were presented on motion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The patents submitted citing the petitioner's work were granted after the petition filing date and therefore could not be considered; eligibility must be established at the time of filing. No qualifying new facts were presented on motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-13_03_B2203; source_row=13678 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Economics
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual policy impact. Witnesses were predominantly academics rather than policymakers and could only attest second-hand to potential future policy influence. The record contained no direct evidence that governments or agencies implemented the petitioner's recommendations, only speculation about future contributions.
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 the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual policy impact. Witnesses were predominantly academics rather than policymakers and could only attest second-hand to potential future policy influence. The record contained no direct evidence that governments or agencies implemented the petitioner's recommendations, only speculation about future contributions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-13_01_B5203; source_row=13676 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 recommendation letters did not specify what original contributions the petitioner made in boxing or how those contributions were of major significance. Letters were largely conclusory and limited to those who interacted with him in New York, insufficient to demonstrate impact on the field at large.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters did not specify what original contributions the petitioner made in boxing or how those contributions were of major significance. Letters were largely conclusory and limited to those who interacted with him in New York, insufficient to demonstrate impact on the field at large.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-12_01_B2203; source_row=13662 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner argued his roles in two films constituted leading roles for distinguished organizations, but the AAO found that films are temporary productions, not organizations or establishments, and there was no evidence of distinguished reputation, substantial audience, critical acclaim, or commercial success.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner argued his roles in two films constituted leading roles for distinguished organizations, but the AAO found that films are temporary productions, not organizations or establishments, and there was no evidence of distinguished reputation, substantial audience, critical acclaim, or commercial success.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-12_01_B2203; source_row=13663 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The totality of evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Amateur awards in Ireland were not commensurate with professional-level acclaim; published articles described him as an up-and-comer; recommendation letters were limited to New York contacts; and remuneration was not shown to be significantly high compared 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 +
The totality of evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Amateur awards in Ireland were not commensurate with professional-level acclaim; published articles described him as an up-and-comer; recommendation letters were limited to New York contacts; and remuneration was not shown to be significantly high compared to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-12_01_B2203; source_row=13665 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The majority of submitted articles lacked required identifying information (date, author, or publication name), and none were accompanied by circulation evidence showing they were published in major media. Several articles post-dated the filing date and were disregarded. Wikipedia entries were given no weight due to reliability concerns.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The majority of submitted articles lacked required identifying information (date, author, or publication name), and none were accompanied by circulation evidence showing they were published in major media. Several articles post-dated the filing date and were disregarded. Wikipedia entries were given no weight due to reliability concerns.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-12_01_B2203; source_row=13661 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
serves the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held the petitioner's reliance on iSTART-specific institutional knowledge collapsed when he left that employer and obtained a labor certification through a successor employer. He failed to show impact on his actual field (software engineering), and witnesses were largely co-workers rather than independent sources.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO held the petitioner's reliance on iSTART-specific institutional knowledge collapsed when he left that employer and obtained a labor certification through a successor employer. He failed to show impact on his actual field (software engineering), and witnesses were largely co-workers rather than independent sources.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-12_03_B5203; source_row=13673 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c