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.
AAO agreed the EXTIMO award was chapter-level and not nationally or internationally recognized. The organization's national membership was insufficient to show the award itself was nationally recognized, and the record lacked evidence of the number of competitors or level of recognition associated with the award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the EXTIMO award was chapter-level and not nationally or internationally recognized. The organization's national membership was insufficient to show the award itself was nationally recognized, and the record lacked evidence of the number of competitors or level of recognition associated with the award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_03_B2203; source_row=31596 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found neither article was 'about' the Beneficiary: one was mainly about a class project, and the other was about a Mexican filmmaker with the Beneficiary as a mere contributor. Additionally, even if one article could be deemed about the Beneficiary, the website on which it appeared was not shown to be a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found neither article was 'about' the Beneficiary: one was mainly about a class project, and the other was about a Mexican filmmaker with the Beneficiary as a mere contributor. Additionally, even if one article could be deemed about the Beneficiary, the website on which it appeared was not shown to be a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_03_B2203; source_row=31597 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the Beneficiary was actually published by NECTFL (as opposed to merely presenting), failed to show all presenters are automatically published, and did not submit the articles themselves to determine if they qualify as scholarly articles.
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 found the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the Beneficiary was actually published by NECTFL (as opposed to merely presenting), failed to show all presenters are automatically published, and did not submit the articles themselves to determine if they qualify as scholarly articles.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_03_B2203; source_row=31600 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to establish how appearing in newspaper articles demonstrates that her company or the other collection is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. No evidence was submitted showing that the newspapers only publish material about organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to establish how appearing in newspaper articles demonstrates that her company or the other collection is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. No evidence was submitted showing that the newspapers only publish material about organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_01_B2203; source_row=31582 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
commercial successes in the performing arts (comparable evidence: sales of designs)
Why AAO was not persuaded
While AAO agreed that comparable evidence could be considered, the record showing that the Petitioner sells designs in stores did not demonstrate that the volume of her sales reflects her commercial success relative to other fashion designers, as required.
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 comparable evidence could be considered, the record showing that the Petitioner sells designs in stores did not demonstrate that the volume of her sales reflects her commercial success relative to other fashion designers, as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_01_B2203; source_row=31583 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The degree certificates appeared to be English translations rather than originals, the record lacked corroborating transcripts, and the equivalency evaluator's conclusions could not be verified because the underlying course and transcript records were not submitted.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The degree certificates appeared to be English translations rather than originals, the record lacked corroborating transcripts, and the equivalency evaluator's conclusions could not be verified because the underlying course and transcript records were not submitted.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_04_B5203; source_row=31603 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
offered position requires an advanced degree professional
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agrees that the labor certification's stated requirements (three years of experience and no required education) do not support classification as an advanced degree professional.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agrees that the labor certification's stated requirements (three years of experience and no required education) do not support classification as an advanced degree professional.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_01_B5203; source_row=31586 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the endeavor
What the decision said
The Director did not sufficiently analyze or discuss the evidence actually in the record; the use of masculine pronouns and references to inapplicable evidence suggests the Director was analyzing a different case.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The Director did not sufficiently analyze or discuss the evidence actually in the record; the use of masculine pronouns and references to inapplicable evidence suggests the Director was analyzing a different case.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_05_B5203; source_row=31608 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
The Director's discussion of national importance was based on evidence not in the record and claims not made by the Petitioner, making the analysis inapplicable to this case and insufficient for review.
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 +
The Director's discussion of national importance was based on evidence not in the record and claims not made by the Petitioner, making the analysis inapplicable to this case and insufficient for review.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_05_B5203; source_row=31607 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, waiving job offer requirement would benefit the United States
What the decision said
The Director mischaracterized the record by referencing evidence not present (income proof) while ignoring evidence that was present (scholarly articles), and made only conclusory statements without explaining the balancing analysis or addressing the Petitioner's specific claims.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The Director mischaracterized the record by referencing evidence not present (income proof) while ignoring evidence that was present (scholarly articles), and made only conclusory statements without explaining the balancing analysis or addressing the Petitioner's specific claims.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-29_05_B5203; source_row=31609 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c