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.
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 found the testimonial letter lacked specific examples of effects in the field, the Bass Magazine article postdated the petition filing and could not be considered, and the personal statement did not explain how the instrument had already made a measurable impact on the field. The criterion requires demonstrated impact, not merely the introduction of a new instrument.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the testimonial letter lacked specific examples of effects in the field, the Bass Magazine article postdated the petition filing and could not be considered, and the personal statement did not explain how the instrument had already made a measurable impact on the field. The criterion requires demonstrated impact, not merely the introduction of a new instrument.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_01_B2203; source_row=31140 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 evaluation of the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically satisfy three criteria even if this criterion were decided in his favor, making it unnecessary to reach.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved evaluation of the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically satisfy three criteria even if this criterion were decided in his favor, making it unnecessary to reach.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_01_B2203; source_row=31142 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the 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 declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_02_B2203; source_row=31156 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ten regulatory criteria (i)–(x) under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)
What the decision said
AAO deemed the ten regulatory criteria waived on appeal because the Petitioner presented only a generalized statement contesting the denial without identifying specific errors or explaining how the evidence satisfies each criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO deemed the ten regulatory criteria waived on appeal because the Petitioner presented only a generalized statement contesting the denial without identifying specific errors or explaining how the evidence satisfies each criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_03_B2203; source_row=31158 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's education, professional experience, licenses, salary, and recognition letters did not establish how he distinguishes himself from other airline pilots or rises to a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's education, professional experience, licenses, salary, and recognition letters did not establish how he distinguishes himself from other airline pilots or rises to a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field. The reference letters were particularly noted as making only broad statements without discussing specific achievements or significant contributions to the industry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_01_B5203; source_row=31144 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Meeting at least three exceptional ability criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii))
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the Petitioner met at least three criteria and declined to adjudicate the two additional contested criteria (salary and recognition) since the threshold was already satisfied.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner met at least three criteria and declined to adjudicate the two additional contested criteria (salary and recognition) since the threshold was already satisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-28_01_B5203; source_row=31143 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner and H-T- & L-, LLC are separate legal entities, citing Matter of Aphrodite Investments and Sitar v. Ashcroft, and held that no financial evidence submitted in the name of the other entity could establish the Petitioner's own ability to pay.
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 Petitioner and H-T- & L-, LLC are separate legal entities, citing Matter of Aphrodite Investments and Sitar v. Ashcroft, and held that no financial evidence submitted in the name of the other entity could establish the Petitioner's own ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-27_02_B5203; source_row=31139 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c