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.
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
Why AAO was not persuaded
The reference letters for the restaurant and church roles failed to meet regulatory requirements—the restaurant employer letter was not submitted, and the church letter lacked specific dates, duties, and position details.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters for the restaurant and church roles failed to meet regulatory requirements—the restaurant employer letter was not submitted, and the church letter lacked specific dates, duties, and position details. Letters about his current dental franchise role praised his success but did not sufficiently document his specific professional position, describe progressive experience in his specialty, or establish that the industry normally requires an advanced degree.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_05_B5203; source_row=38926 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concluded the Petitioner did not show how her work for individual companies and trainees would have broader implications for the field of business operations or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. Support and expert letters discussed past accomplishments or general industry issues rather than the specific endeavor's broader impact.
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 +
AAO concluded the Petitioner did not show how her work for individual companies and trainees would have broader implications for the field of business operations or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. Support and expert letters discussed past accomplishments or general industry issues rather than the specific endeavor's broader impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_04_B5203; source_row=38922 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The comparable evidence claim was raised for the first time on appeal and was not properly before the AAO. In any event, the Petitioner failed to explain why any specific criterion does not apply to her occupation, and a general inability to meet the standard criteria does not entitle a petitioner to substitute comparable evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The comparable evidence claim was raised for the first time on appeal and was not properly before the AAO. In any event, the Petitioner failed to explain why any specific criterion does not apply to her occupation, and a general inability to meet the standard criteria does not entitle a petitioner to substitute comparable evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B5203; source_row=38921 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner met criterion (ix) and thus satisfied three criteria, AAO found it unnecessary to address additional eligibility claims relating to criterion (v).
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner met criterion (ix) and thus satisfied three criteria, AAO found it unnecessary to address additional eligibility claims relating to criterion (v).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B2203; source_row=38913 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Director's rejection of the criterion was improperly based on the comparative data being 'unreadable.' Upon de novo review of the additional BLS data submitted on appeal, AAO concluded that the Petitioner's salary substantially exceeded the average for comparable California-based positions, establishing that he commanded a high salary in relation 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 found the Director's rejection of the criterion was improperly based on the comparative data being 'unreadable.' Upon de novo review of the additional BLS data submitted on appeal, AAO concluded that the Petitioner's salary substantially exceeded the average for comparable California-based positions, establishing that he commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B2203; source_row=38915 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters did not address the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole; they spoke to personal and professional impact on individual authors rather than industry-wide contributions. One letter was from a journalist, and the Petitioner did not establish a journalist is an acceptable source under the regulation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters did not address the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole; they spoke to personal and professional impact on individual authors rather than industry-wide contributions. One letter was from a journalist, and the Petitioner did not establish a journalist is an acceptable source under the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B5203; source_row=38920 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner presented essentially the same argument on appeal as before the Director without identifying any error, and did not explain or demonstrate that the Association of Cake Designers and Sugar Artists qualifies as a professional association. AAO concluded the issue was abandoned or waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner presented essentially the same argument on appeal as before the Director without identifying any error, and did not explain or demonstrate that the Association of Cake Designers and Sugar Artists qualifies as a professional association. AAO concluded the issue was abandoned or waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B5203; source_row=38919 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new letter submitted on appeal lacked a properly certified English translation, reflected work as an administrator rather than as a bakery and pastry chef, and in any event could not be considered because it was not timely submitted before the denial. The Petitioner failed to carry her burden under this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new letter submitted on appeal lacked a properly certified English translation, reflected work as an administrator rather than as a bakery and pastry chef, and in any event could not be considered because it was not timely submitted before the denial. The Petitioner failed to carry her burden under this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-11_03_B5203; source_row=38918 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c