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 2971–2980
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen — New Facts and Evidence
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner only resubmitted evidence already in the record and did not offer new evidence or claim new facts, failing to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner only resubmitted evidence already in the record and did not offer new evidence or claim new facts, failing to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_02_B5203; source_row=40560 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider — Incorrect Application of Law or Policy
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO rejected the full faith and credit argument because 28 U.S.C. § 1738 applies to courts, not federal administrative agencies. AAO also rejected the claim that it failed to analyze the RFE response evidence, because that evidence was late-filed and not part of the record at the time of the initial decision. The Petitioner cited no legal authority excusing late filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO rejected the full faith and credit argument because 28 U.S.C. § 1738 applies to courts, not federal administrative agencies. AAO also rejected the claim that it failed to analyze the RFE response evidence, because that evidence was late-filed and not part of the record at the time of the initial decision. The Petitioner cited no legal authority excusing late filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_02_B5203; source_row=40561 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes
What the decision said
AAO disagreed that coaching and training are entirely different fields given the record, and found that the Director's conclusion prevented a full analysis of the evidence. The matter is remanded for re-evaluation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed that coaching and training are entirely different fields given the record, and found that the Director's conclusion prevented a full analysis of the evidence. The matter is remanded for re-evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=40545 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
What the decision said
AAO disagreed that athletic coaching and athletic training are different areas of expertise for purposes of this criterion, and remanded for re-examination of the evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed that athletic coaching and athletic training are different areas of expertise for purposes of this criterion, and remanded for re-examination of the evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=40546 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for a distinguished organization
What the decision said
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director did not provide sufficient analysis of the evidence or explanation for concluding the criterion was not met, and remanded for re-evaluation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director did not provide sufficient analysis of the evidence or explanation for concluding the criterion was not met, and remanded for re-evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=40550 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
What the decision said
AAO agreed with the Director that the employment contract alone was insufficient to prove past earnings and that the income statement had deficiencies (no identified income source, inconsistency with contract amount). However, AAO disagreed with the Director's erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner's earnings as a coach were in a different field and could not be relied upon.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the employment contract alone was insufficient to prove past earnings and that the income statement had deficiencies (no identified income source, inconsistency with contract amount). However, AAO disagreed with the Director's erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner's earnings as a coach were in a different field and could not be relied upon.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=40551 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
judging the work of others
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the letters did not establish that the Petitioner personally performed judging activities. One letter described the board of coaches' functions without establishing the Petitioner was on that board; the other described general selection processes without expressly stating the Petitioner participated as a judge.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the letters did not establish that the Petitioner personally performed judging activities. One letter described the board of coaches' functions without establishing the Petitioner was on that board; the other described general selection processes without expressly stating the Petitioner participated as a judge.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=40548 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not establish that he received a prize or award as an honoree (as opposed to a nominee), and even if he had, the evidence did not show that the [REDACTED] awards are nationally or internationally recognized in the field of digital art. The New York Times article described the awards as 'self-proclaimed' and focused on their 'quirky' nature, not their prestige.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not establish that he received a prize or award as an honoree (as opposed to a nominee), and even if he had, the evidence did not show that the [REDACTED] awards are nationally or internationally recognized in the field of digital art. The New York Times article described the awards as 'self-proclaimed' and focused on their 'quirky' nature, not their prestige.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-05_01_B2203; source_row=40524 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
While AAO agreed that past roles may be considered (disagreeing with the Director's partial reliance on the transition statement), the CEO letter did not establish that the Petitioner led a specific department or that his role was critical to the company's operations, and the evidence was insufficient to show the employer had a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While AAO agreed that past roles may be considered (disagreeing with the Director's partial reliance on the transition statement), the CEO letter did not establish that the Petitioner led a specific department or that his role was critical to the company's operations, and the evidence was insufficient to show the employer had a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-05_01_B2203; source_row=40528 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 reviewed the entire record and found it did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner had risen to the very top of the field, though this determination was technically not required given the failure to meet the initial evidence threshold.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the entire record and found it did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner had risen to the very top of the field, though this determination was technically not required given the failure to meet the initial evidence threshold.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-05_01_B2203; source_row=40529 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c