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 9831–9840
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the submitted evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance: the WSJ blog did not show industry-wide adoption, the Bar & Restaurant article described future potential rather than existing impact, the Intel advisory letter did not identify specific innovations, and the startup incubator letters did not establish that the Petitioner's involvement itself constituted a major contribution.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the submitted evidence did not establish original contributions of major significance: the WSJ blog did not show industry-wide adoption, the Bar & Restaurant article described future potential rather than existing impact, the Intel advisory letter did not identify specific innovations, and the startup incubator letters did not establish that the Petitioner's involvement itself constituted a major contribution. The Petitioner failed to elaborate on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_01_B2203; source_row=29877 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish that either the organization or the university program qualifies as an association requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The leadership position itself is not an association in the field.
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 failed to establish that either the organization or the university program qualifies as an association requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The leadership position itself is not an association in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_01_B2203; source_row=29874 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the individual in professional or major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO disagreed with the Director and credited the Forbes Ukraine article under criterion (iii), finding that the Petitioner had in fact submitted a letter from the magazine's editor containing the required author credit and publication date information.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director and credited the Forbes Ukraine article under criterion (iii), finding that the Petitioner had in fact submitted a letter from the magazine's editor containing the required author credit and publication date information.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_01_B2203; source_row=29875 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly stated it need not reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence threshold, though it noted in advisory dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly stated it need not reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence threshold, though it noted in advisory dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_01_B2203; source_row=29878 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen Requirements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The materials offered on the third motion relate to the 2019 denial and 2020 appeal dismissal, not to the September 2021 prior AAO motion decision that is the only permissible scope of the current motion. Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, the new materials do not constitute documentary evidence of new facts as to that decision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The materials offered on the third motion relate to the 2019 denial and 2020 appeal dismissal, not to the September 2021 prior AAO motion decision that is the only permissible scope of the current motion. Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, the new materials do not constitute documentary evidence of new facts as to that decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=29880 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider Requirements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the September 2021 decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner failed to show that supporting documents for a motion may be filed after the Form I-290B initiating the motion, or that he filed supporting documentation simultaneously with the Form I-290B in May 2020.
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 demonstrate that the September 2021 decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner failed to show that supporting documents for a motion may be filed after the Form I-290B initiating the motion, or that he filed supporting documentation simultaneously with the Form I-290B in May 2020.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=29879 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record showed multiple tattoo competition placements, but there was no evidence showing that the Petitioner's specific awards were recognized by the field outside of the events themselves, and no information about the selection criteria or national/international significance of the awards.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record showed multiple tattoo competition placements, but there was no evidence showing that the Petitioner's specific awards were recognized by the field outside of the events themselves, and no information about the selection criteria or national/international significance of the awards.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-26_01_B2203; source_row=29865 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
Letters from the Petitioner's studio and sponsor companies lacked specific detail about his particular contribution to their outcomes, such as revenue attributable to him or the significance of his role relative to other artists.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Letters from the Petitioner's studio and sponsor companies lacked specific detail about his particular contribution to their outcomes, such as revenue attributable to him or the significance of his role relative to other artists. Additionally, the endorsement companies failed to establish a distinguished reputation, as media coverage in outlets like Orange County Weekly and Tokewell magazine was insufficient, and self-promotional website content was likewise inadequate.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-26_01_B2203; source_row=29869 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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of at least three criteria, but noted in an advisory capacity that the record in the aggregate does not establish 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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of at least three criteria, but noted in an advisory capacity that the record in the aggregate does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-26_01_B2203; source_row=29870 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
The expert letters lacked specifics and offered only conclusory or hyperbolic praise, without identifying individuals who implemented the Petitioner's style or providing concrete evidence that his artistry affected the field in a substantial way. AAO also noted USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The expert letters lacked specifics and offered only conclusory or hyperbolic praise, without identifying individuals who implemented the Petitioner's style or providing concrete evidence that his artistry affected the field in a substantial way. AAO also noted USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-26_01_B2203; source_row=29867 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c