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.
10,847 decisions /36,849 findings
Showing 9161–9170
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 evidence insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance because the record did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's sole responsibility for or control over the programs, and the recommendation letters did not explain how his missionary work impacted the field in a major or significant way.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance because the record did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's sole responsibility for or control over the programs, and the recommendation letters did not explain how his missionary work impacted the field in a major or significant way.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-31_01_B2203; source_row=30865 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years full-time experience (employer letters)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted employer letter failed to specify whether the Petitioner's employment was full-time or that he had at least ten years of full-time experience, despite covering a 2000–2017 period. It also lacked contact and identifying information for its author.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted employer letter failed to specify whether the Petitioner's employment was full-time or that he had at least ten years of full-time experience, despite covering a 2000–2017 period. It also lacked contact and identifying information for its author.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-31_01_B5203; source_row=30869 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's professional abilities and personal traits but did not demonstrate how he was recognized for achievements or how his contributions rose to the level of 'significant' impact on the field or industry beyond his employers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's professional abilities and personal traits but did not demonstrate how he was recognized for achievements or how his contributions rose to the level of 'significant' impact on the field or industry beyond his employers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-31_01_B5203; source_row=30872 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 explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the initial evidentiary threshold, though it noted in the aggregate that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the initial evidentiary threshold, though it noted in the aggregate that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-31_01_B2203; source_row=30868 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner did not submit sufficient independent, objective evidence demonstrating that his organization has a reputation that distinguishes it from other Christian missionary organizations.
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 sufficient independent, objective evidence demonstrating that his organization has a reputation that distinguishes it from other Christian missionary organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-31_01_B2203; source_row=30866 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
The songbook is not published material about the Petitioner. The articles merely mention him briefly among multiple performers and are not about him. The publications were not shown to be major media. YouTube availability does not constitute major media as it is open to any user regardless of notoriety.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The songbook is not published material about the Petitioner. The articles merely mention him briefly among multiple performers and are not about him. The publications were not shown to be major media. YouTube availability does not constitute major media as it is open to any user regardless of notoriety.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=30841 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not present documentary evidence showing his compensation as a soloist, nor comparative evidence establishing that his remuneration was high relative to others similarly employed in his field.
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 present documentary evidence showing his compensation as a soloist, nor comparative evidence establishing that his remuneration was high relative to others similarly employed in his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=30847 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While box office sales are not the only determining factor, general evidence of performances around the world is insufficient. The plain language of the regulation requires documentary evidence of monetary compensation or commercially recognized rankings, such as box office receipts or sales volumes, which the Petitioner failed to provide.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While box office sales are not the only determining factor, general evidence of performances around the world is insufficient. The plain language of the regulation requires documentary evidence of monetary compensation or commercially recognized rankings, such as box office receipts or sales volumes, which the Petitioner failed to provide.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=30848 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record lacks sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence that the awards were given for excellence in the performing arts specifically; rather, the evidence suggests the Armenian Ministry gives awards to a wide variety of occupations promoting Armenian culture. The Petitioner did not provide evidence from the award-granting institution about its methodology for selecting recipients.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record lacks sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence that the awards were given for excellence in the performing arts specifically; rather, the evidence suggests the Armenian Ministry gives awards to a wide variety of occupations promoting Armenian culture. The Petitioner did not provide evidence from the award-granting institution about its methodology for selecting recipients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-26_01_B2203; source_row=30839 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c