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 23851–23860
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
Considering all evidence in aggregate, the petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Her single unrecognized award, employment-level membership, local/regional publications, vague letters failing to identify contributions, and reliance on employer's commercial success do not elevate her above other circus performers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Considering all evidence in aggregate, the petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Her single unrecognized award, employment-level membership, local/regional publications, vague letters failing to identify contributions, and reliance on employer's commercial success do not elevate her above other circus performers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_03_B2203; source_row=13631 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner failed to provide evidence of her own commercial successes through box office receipts or sales. Her contribution to an employer's commercial success is not the same as her own commercial success, and there was no evidence directly attributing the employer's success to her.
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 evidence of her own commercial successes through box office receipts or sales. Her contribution to an employer's commercial success is not the same as her own commercial success, and there was no evidence directly attributing the employer's success to her.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_03_B2203; source_row=13630 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner established receipt of only one qualifying nationally recognized award. The regulation requires 'prizes' and 'awards' in the plural, so one award is insufficient. The second claimed award lacked evidence of personal receipt. The third award lacked 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 petitioner established receipt of only one qualifying nationally recognized award. The regulation requires 'prizes' and 'awards' in the plural, so one award is insufficient. The second claimed award lacked evidence of personal receipt. The third award lacked evidence of national or international recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=13620 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Considered in the aggregate, the petitioner's evidence — one qualifying award, project-level awards, one uncited article not aimed at software engineers, critical role at one organization, and above-average regional salary compared to a broader peer group — does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement 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 +
Considered in the aggregate, the petitioner's evidence — one qualifying award, project-level awards, one uncited article not aimed at software engineers, critical role at one organization, and above-average regional salary compared to a broader peer group — does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=13624 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the director's finding. The salary survey was geographically limited, used an average (mean) rather than identifying high earners, and compared the petitioner's salary to general software engineers rather than senior software engineers, providing no appropriate basis for establishing a high salary relative 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 +
AAO withdrew the director's finding. The salary survey was geographically limited, used an average (mean) rather than identifying high earners, and compared the petitioner's salary to general software engineers rather than senior software engineers, providing no appropriate basis for establishing a high salary relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=13623 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the director erred by requiring citation evidence beyond the regulation's scope and withdrew that specific finding, but upheld the denial because the regulation requires 'scholarly articles' in the plural and the petitioner submitted only one article.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the director erred by requiring citation evidence beyond the regulation's scope and withdrew that specific finding, but upheld the denial because the regulation requires 'scholarly articles' in the plural and the petitioner submitted only one article.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=13621 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
Across all four criteria, evidence was deficient, stale, or based on recommendation letters rather than independent documentary proof. The petitioner's career was well below the very top of his field compared to internationally recognized soccer players.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Across all four criteria, evidence was deficient, stale, or based on recommendation letters rather than independent documentary proof. The petitioner's career was well below the very top of his field compared to internationally recognized soccer players.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_01_B2203; source_row=13618 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO had previously acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's area of expertise in Korean international relations, and that finding was not in dispute on motion.
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 had previously acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's area of expertise in Korean international relations, and that finding was not in dispute on motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_04_B5203; source_row=13632 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
Why the evidence was persuasive
On motion, the petitioner submitted more specific witness letters from credentialed experts, including a former NSC director of Korea affairs, and documentation of major media outlets seeking out the petitioner's commentary. The AAO found these materials established that the petitioner is a uniquely positioned and influential expert on North Korea policy, remedying the prior deficiencies in corroboration and specificity.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
On motion, the petitioner submitted more specific witness letters from credentialed experts, including a former NSC director of Korea affairs, and documentation of major media outlets seeking out the petitioner's commentary. The AAO found these materials established that the petitioner is a uniquely positioned and influential expert on North Korea policy, remedying the prior deficiencies in corroboration and specificity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-10_04_B5203; source_row=13634 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c