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.
Criterion (E) – evidence of commanding a high salary
What the decision said
The Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that criterion (E) was met; the issue was not raised on appeal and AAO limited its review to criterion (F).
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 contest the Director's finding that criterion (E) was met; the issue was not raised on appeal and AAO limited its review to criterion (F).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-03_02_B5203; source_row=31635 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Criterion (A) – official academic record showing degree
What the decision said
The Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that criterion (A) was met; the issue was not raised on appeal and AAO limited its review to criterion (F).
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 contest the Director's finding that criterion (A) was met; the issue was not raised on appeal and AAO limited its review to criterion (F).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-03_02_B5203; source_row=31634 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concluded the Petitioner did not establish national importance because her endeavor was not well defined—she gave three contradictory accounts of her role and the post-filing business plan and new entity could not establish eligibility. The expert letter was overly vague and conclusory, and the record did not show national or global implications or substantial positive economic effects.
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 establish national importance because her endeavor was not well defined—she gave three contradictory accounts of her role and the post-filing business plan and new entity could not establish eligibility. The expert letter was overly vague and conclusory, and the record did not show national or global implications or substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B5203; source_row=31623 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while Models.com is a valued community in the field, the record lacks evidence that membership requires outstanding achievements or that eligibility is judged by recognized national or international experts.
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 Models.com is a valued community in the field, the record lacks evidence that membership requires outstanding achievements or that eligibility is judged by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31614 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the only evidence of actual judging participation was a brief statement in an unsigned letter, without corroborating evidence. Additionally, competition participants 'must have had no prior modeling experience,' so the Petitioner was not shown to have judged work in the same or allied field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the only evidence of actual judging participation was a brief statement in an unsigned letter, without corroborating evidence. Additionally, competition participants 'must have had no prior modeling experience,' so the Petitioner was not shown to have judged work in the same or allied field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31616 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the content—such as behind-the-scenes photos, selfies, and getting-ready videos—did not constitute scholarly articles intended for learned persons in the field, regardless of the publications' social media following.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the content—such as behind-the-scenes photos, selfies, and getting-ready videos—did not constitute scholarly articles intended for learned persons in the field, regardless of the publications' social media following.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31618 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the evidence confirmed participation as a model at notable events but did not establish a leading or critical role for any specific organization. It was unclear whether the claim was based on her modeling agencies or the charitable organizations, and counsel's assertions were not substantiated with independent evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the evidence confirmed participation as a model at notable events but did not establish a leading or critical role for any specific organization. It was unclear whether the claim was based on her modeling agencies or the charitable organizations, and counsel's assertions were not substantiated with independent evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31620 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner did not submit evidence of box office receipts or record/video sales as required by the plain language of the criterion, did not show commercial success was attributable to her specific work, and did not provide evidence of relative commercial success compared to others in the performing arts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner did not submit evidence of box office receipts or record/video sales as required by the plain language of the criterion, did not show commercial success was attributable to her specific work, and did not provide evidence of relative commercial success compared to others in the performing arts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31622 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 declined to consider evidence submitted for the first time on appeal after the Petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and failed to respond to the RFE. Additionally, the reference letters praised her professionalism and work ethic but did not identify any specific original contribution of major significance to the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider evidence submitted for the first time on appeal after the Petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and failed to respond to the RFE. Additionally, the reference letters praised her professionalism and work ethic but did not identify any specific original contribution of major significance to the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31617 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the WA Fashion Awards were local in nature, limited to models signed with three Western Australian agencies, and winners were selected by an online public vote, all of which undermined the claim of national recognition and significance.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the WA Fashion Awards were local in nature, limited to models signed with three Western Australian agencies, and winners were selected by an online public vote, all of which undermined the claim of national recognition and significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=31613 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c