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 24221–24230
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the salary offer letter was prospective ('will be') and did not satisfy the past-tense regulatory requirement that the alien 'has commanded' a high salary. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no evidence of actual prior earnings, and the offered salary was only barely at the 90th percentile, which the AAO did not consider 'high' when 10% of others in the field earn more.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the salary offer letter was prospective ('will be') and did not satisfy the past-tense regulatory requirement that the alien 'has commanded' a high salary. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no evidence of actual prior earnings, and the offered salary was only barely at the 90th percentile, which the AAO did not consider 'high' when 10% of others in the field earn more.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_04_B2203; source_row=13229 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
None of the submitted awards qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field. Scholarships are academic and limited to student competition; the team certificate has no external recognition; the Nepal Bidhya Bhusan Award was granted for earning a doctorate, not for professional excellence.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
None of the submitted awards qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field. Scholarships are academic and limited to student competition; the team certificate has no external recognition; the Nepal Bidhya Bhusan Award was granted for earning a doctorate, not for professional excellence. Additionally, the plain language of the criterion requires plural qualifying awards, which the petitioner did not provide.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B2203; source_row=13209 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
Considering all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner's awards were academic-achievement based, his publications were minimally cited, his role as consultant was not leading or critical to the organizations as a whole, and his work had not demonstrably impacted the field.…
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 the aggregate, the petitioner's awards were academic-achievement based, his publications were minimally cited, his role as consultant was not leading or critical to the organizations as a whole, and his work had not demonstrably impacted the field. The evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B2203; source_row=13214 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's finding. There was no documentary evidence that USAID or the Government of Iraq had a distinguished reputation; the Government of Iraq's own description in the record (plagued by violence and weak IPR enforcement) undermined such a claim. The petitioner's consultant role was not shown to be leading or critical to the organizations as a whole, only to specific USAID projects.
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. There was no documentary evidence that USAID or the Government of Iraq had a distinguished reputation; the Government of Iraq's own description in the record (plagued by violence and weak IPR enforcement) undermined such a claim. The petitioner's consultant role was not shown to be leading or critical to the organizations as a whole, only to specific USAID projects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B2203; source_row=13213 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 draft law had not been enacted and its future impact was speculative; eligibility must be established at time of filing. Reference letters were from direct collaborators and did not show broader field impact. Minimal citation counts (two and one) did not establish major significance. The regulation requires contributions in the plural, further defeating the claim.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The draft law had not been enacted and its future impact was speculative; eligibility must be established at time of filing. Reference letters were from direct collaborators and did not show broader field impact. Minimal citation counts (two and one) did not establish major significance. The regulation requires contributions in the plural, further defeating the claim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B2203; source_row=13211 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the letters merely reflected freelance packaging and advertisement work, with no evidence comparing the beneficiary's role to others or establishing that the organizations had a distinguished reputation. The volunteer teaching role was also outside the beneficiary's claimed area of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the letters merely reflected freelance packaging and advertisement work, with no evidence comparing the beneficiary's role to others or establishing that the organizations had a distinguished reputation. The volunteer teaching role was also outside the beneficiary's claimed area of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13223 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that while the beneficiary's work appeared on products and in television commercials, there was no evidence it was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases such as galleries or museums, as required by the plain language of the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the beneficiary's work appeared on products and in television commercials, there was no evidence it was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases such as galleries or museums, as required by the plain language of the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13222 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found this criterion inapplicable to graphic arts professionals, as it expressly applies to the performing arts. The petitioner also failed to submit evidence of box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales. The criterion was raised for the first time on appeal, so the director could not have erred.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found this criterion inapplicable to graphic arts professionals, as it expressly applies to the performing arts. The petitioner also failed to submit evidence of box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales. The criterion was raised for the first time on appeal, so the director could not have erred.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13224 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
AAO found the petitioner failed to show the beneficiary's work impacted or influenced the field beyond her employer clients. Merely submitting work samples and a letter from an employer stating she was an 'important player' is insufficient to demonstrate contributions of major significance to the field as a whole.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner failed to show the beneficiary's work impacted or influenced the field beyond her employer clients. Merely submitting work samples and a letter from an employer stating she was an 'important player' is insufficient to demonstrate contributions of major significance to the field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13220 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
AAO found that winning two lesser awards and judging three times for company/organizational contests, without evidence of broader field impact, fell far short of establishing 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 +
AAO found that winning two lesser awards and judging three times for company/organizational contests, without evidence of broader field impact, fell far short of establishing sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13225 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c