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 24081–24090
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
Submitting artwork samples alone is insufficient; the petitioner provided no evidence showing widespread impact or influence in the field. Support letters admired his work but did not establish major significance. The Latin American flag project only had local recognition from Union City, NJ at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Submitting artwork samples alone is insufficient; the petitioner provided no evidence showing widespread impact or influence in the field. Support letters admired his work but did not establish major significance. The Latin American flag project only had local recognition from Union City, NJ at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13376 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 petitioner only satisfied one of ten criteria. His exhibitions lacked evidence of critical acclaim or significant crowds. The Latin American flag project had only local recognition at the time of filing. The totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner 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 +
The petitioner only satisfied one of ten criteria. His exhibitions lacked evidence of critical acclaim or significant crowds. The Latin American flag project had only local recognition at the time of filing. The totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13381 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
This criterion applies to performing artists such as singers and actors, not visual artists. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales 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 +
This criterion applies to performing artists such as singers and actors, not visual artists. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales as required by the plain language of the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13379 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner submitted some evidence of remuneration but provided no comparative evidence showing his compensation was significantly high relative to others in the field. One check post-dated the petition filing and was not considered.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted some evidence of remuneration but provided no comparative evidence showing his compensation was significantly high relative to others in the field. One check post-dated the petition filing and was not considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13378 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, satisfying the plain language of the regulation. The AAO withdrew the director's contrary finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, satisfying the plain language of the regulation. The AAO withdrew the director's contrary finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13377 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Counsel failed to contest the director's decision or offer additional arguments for the membership criterion on appeal, so the AAO declined to further discuss it.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel failed to contest the director's decision or offer additional arguments for the membership criterion on appeal, so the AAO declined to further discuss it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13373 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
one-time major internationally recognized award
What the decision said
Counsel did not contest or address the one-time major award issue on appeal. The AAO also noted that the same documentary evidence failed under the lesser awards criterion, so the petitioner clearly could not meet the higher standard. The issue was considered abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel did not contest or address the one-time major award issue on appeal. The AAO also noted that the same documentary evidence failed under the lesser awards criterion, so the petitioner clearly could not meet the higher standard. The issue was considered abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13380 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Counsel failed to contest the director's decision or offer additional arguments for the judging criterion on appeal, so the AAO declined to further discuss it.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Counsel failed to contest the director's decision or offer additional arguments for the judging criterion on appeal, so the AAO declined to further discuss it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-15_01_B2203; source_row=13375 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because the director found the criterion met without any discussion of the evidence. The petitioner earned a commission (10% of gross compensation) rather than a salary, submitted salary data for photographers rather than cinematographers, and failed to compare her remuneration to the highest earners in the field or to other cinematographers specifically.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because the director found the criterion met without any discussion of the evidence. The petitioner earned a commission (10% of gross compensation) rather than a salary, submitted salary data for photographers rather than cinematographers, and failed to compare her remuneration to the highest earners in the field or to other cinematographers specifically.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-14_03_B2203; source_row=13365 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's membership in ICG appeared to be based on work experience rather than outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the petitioner claimed only one association when the regulation requires memberships (plural). Comparable evidence was not applicable because the ten criteria can apply to cinematographers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's membership in ICG appeared to be based on work experience rather than outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the petitioner claimed only one association when the regulation requires memberships (plural). Comparable evidence was not applicable because the ten criteria can apply to cinematographers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-14_03_B2203; source_row=13361 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c