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.
Net income was below the $75,000 proffered wage in 2002, 2003, and 2005; net current assets were also below the proffered wage in 2005. The unaudited 2005 financial statement was rejected as non-compliant with the regulation's audited-statement requirement and contained an unexplained major discrepancy with the tax return.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Net income was below the $75,000 proffered wage in 2002, 2003, and 2005; net current assets were also below the proffered wage in 2005. The unaudited 2005 financial statement was rejected as non-compliant with the regulation's audited-statement requirement and contained an unexplained major discrepancy with the tax return. Bank statements are not enumerated as acceptable evidence and cannot demonstrate a sustainable ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_01_B5203; source_row=13475 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
beneficiary's prior employment experience as stated on labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The beneficiary provided contradictory dates of employment across multiple sworn forms and letters from a prior employer were also internally inconsistent. The petitioner did not submit independent objective evidence resolving these discrepancies.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary provided contradictory dates of employment across multiple sworn forms and letters from a prior employer were also internally inconsistent. The petitioner did not submit independent objective evidence resolving these discrepancies.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_01_B5203; source_row=13476 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 praised the petitioner's skills but failed to show original contributions of major significance—they provided only general statements without indicating how her work impacted the field. Being a prima ballerina or having unique skills does not itself demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Letters speculating about future contributions cannot establish present eligibility.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters praised the petitioner's skills but failed to show original contributions of major significance—they provided only general statements without indicating how her work impacted the field. Being a prima ballerina or having unique skills does not itself demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Letters speculating about future contributions cannot establish present eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-08_01_B2203; source_row=13470 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed on multiple grounds: most articles were about shows rather than about the petitioner, captions and advertisements don't qualify as published material about the petitioner, partial translations don't comply with the full translation requirement, many items lacked required title/date/author, television appearances are not 'published material,' and internet postings were 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 +
The petitioner failed on multiple grounds: most articles were about shows rather than about the petitioner, captions and advertisements don't qualify as published material about the petitioner, partial translations don't comply with the full translation requirement, many items lacked required title/date/author, television appearances are not 'published material,' and internet postings were not shown to be major media. Items filed after the petition date cannot be considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-08_01_B2203; source_row=13468 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO disagreed with the director's reasoning and found the petitioner did demonstrate a leading or critical role. However, the petitioner failed on a different ground: she did not submit documentary evidence establishing that the ballet companies for which she performed have a distinguished reputation, as required by the plain language of the regulation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the director's reasoning and found the petitioner did demonstrate a leading or critical role. However, the petitioner failed on a different ground: she did not submit documentary evidence establishing that the ballet companies for which she performed have a distinguished reputation, as required by the plain language of the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-08_01_B2203; source_row=13472 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Serving as an instructor or coach does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others. The phrase 'a judge' implies a formal designation in a judging capacity. Evidence regarding coached dancers' competition acceptances was filed after the petition date and cannot be considered. Performing as a guest dancer also does not entail judging.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Serving as an instructor or coach does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others. The phrase 'a judge' implies a formal designation in a judging capacity. Evidence regarding coached dancers' competition acceptances was filed after the petition date and cannot be considered. Performing as a guest dancer also does not entail judging.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-08_01_B2203; source_row=13469 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—a single award 13 years before filing, no articles published about the petitioner relating to her work, judging experience limited to coaching students, recommendation letters without evidence of major contributions, and roles with companies of unproven distinguished reputation—does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim 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 +
The totality of evidence—a single award 13 years before filing, no articles published about the petitioner relating to her work, judging experience limited to coaching students, recommendation letters without evidence of major contributions, and roles with companies of unproven distinguished reputation—does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-08_01_B2203; source_row=13474 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner met only one criterion rather than the required three, rendering a full final merits determination unnecessary, but the AAO performed one in the alternative. The totality of evidence, including minimal citations, speculative letters, and a below-top salary, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner met only one criterion rather than the required three, rendering a full final merits determination unnecessary, but the AAO performed one in the alternative. The totality of evidence, including minimal citations, speculative letters, and a below-top salary, did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-07_02_B2203; source_row=13465 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO conducted de novo review because the director's decision was cut off and unclear. The petitioner submitted only a self-compiled list and reproduced emails, not primary evidence of actually completing reviews. The plain language requires evidence of actual participation as a judge, and mere requests to review are insufficient.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO conducted de novo review because the director's decision was cut off and unclear. The petitioner submitted only a self-compiled list and reproduced emails, not primary evidence of actually completing reviews. The plain language requires evidence of actual participation as a judge, and mere requests to review are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-07_02_B2203; source_row=13460 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c