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
Why AAO was not persuaded
Multiple employment letters fail to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) requirements or contain internal contradictions, and the only qualifying letter covers only approximately two years and eight months rather than five years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Multiple employment letters fail to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) requirements or contain internal contradictions, and the only qualifying letter covers only approximately two years and eight months rather than five years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-21_01_B5203; source_row=36529 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO formally reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step one, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO formally reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step one, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-21_02_B2203; source_row=36540 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the evidence shows the Petitioner's work positively impacted specific businesses and an art program, it does not demonstrate how her designs or creations significantly impacted the broader field of fashion design.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While the evidence shows the Petitioner's work positively impacted specific businesses and an art program, it does not demonstrate how her designs or creations significantly impacted the broader field of fashion design.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-21_02_B2203; source_row=36537 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO reserved criterion (viii) because the Petitioner had already failed to meet at least three criteria based on the criteria that were addressed, making further analysis unnecessary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved criterion (viii) because the Petitioner had already failed to meet at least three criteria based on the criteria that were addressed, making further analysis unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-21_04_B2203; source_row=36558 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c