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 9761–9770
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
one-time major internationally recognized award
What the decision said
AAO declined to separately adjudicate the Petitioner's appeal argument that the 2009 Championships silver team medal qualifies as a one-time major internationally recognized award, folding the issue into the final merits determination instead.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to separately adjudicate the Petitioner's appeal argument that the 2009 Championships silver team medal qualifies as a one-time major internationally recognized award, folding the issue into the final merits determination instead.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-14_02_B2203; source_row=29995 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Telenedelya and Cosmopolitan awards were popularity contests open to all Ukrainian viewers/social media users and lacked evidence of national or international significance in the field. For the show's awards, the Petitioner was not identified as the recipient — the awards went to the show itself.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Telenedelya and Cosmopolitan awards were popularity contests open to all Ukrainian viewers/social media users and lacked evidence of national or international significance in the field. For the show's awards, the Petitioner was not identified as the recipient — the awards went to the show itself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-13_01_B2203; source_row=29958 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
Support letters from colleagues lacked specific details about how the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance; they were largely conclusory and hyperbolic. The record lacked corroborating evidence such as television rankings or statistical data showing widespread influence on the field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Support letters from colleagues lacked specific details about how the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance; they were largely conclusory and hyperbolic. The record lacked corroborating evidence such as television rankings or statistical data showing widespread influence on the field. Social media followers and brand endorsements do not demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-13_01_B2203; source_row=29961 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The compensation report reflected remuneration paid to the Petitioner rather than commercial success measured by sales or receipts. YouTube view counts were not shown to translate to commercial successes in the form of sales or receipts relative to others in the field. The supporting letter was uncorroborated by independent ratings reports or objective viewership data.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The compensation report reflected remuneration paid to the Petitioner rather than commercial success measured by sales or receipts. YouTube view counts were not shown to translate to commercial successes in the form of sales or receipts relative to others in the field. The supporting letter was uncorroborated by independent ratings reports or objective viewership data.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-13_01_B2203; source_row=29964 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded that the recommendation letters, advisory opinion, and background articles either praised the Petitioner personally or addressed the importance of architecture generally, without establishing national importance for her specific proposed endeavor.…
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 that the recommendation letters, advisory opinion, and background articles either praised the Petitioner personally or addressed the importance of architecture generally, without establishing national importance for her specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's endeavor also shifted materially from initial filing to RFE response — from cross-border consulting with Latin American markets to running a local Florida architecture firm — making it impossible to identify a consistent specific endeavor. Even accepting her RFE-response endeavor, her business plan projecting 43 direct jobs and $2 million in salaries was insufficient to demonstrate national-level impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-13_01_B5203; source_row=29966 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years of full-time experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the letter did not comport with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and noted Petitioner's concurrent 15+ years of self-employment in a bird-breeding business unexplained in relation to the proposed luxury transportation endeavor.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the letter did not comport with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and noted Petitioner's concurrent 15+ years of self-employment in a bird-breeding business unexplained in relation to the proposed luxury transportation endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-13_03_B5203; source_row=29974 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c