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 found the Director's failure to evaluate the RFE response and determine advanced degree eligibility rendered the decision insufficient for review, warranting remand for a final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's failure to evaluate the RFE response and determine advanced degree eligibility rendered the decision insufficient for review, warranting remand for a final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-05_01_B5203; source_row=29717 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
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters attested to the Petitioner's innate talent and high-quality work but did not identify how he made an original contribution of major significance. His claimed technique lacked objective evidence of wide impact, and a patent and licensing contract submitted on appeal were not accepted because the Petitioner failed to provide them during the RFE response when specifically requested.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letters attested to the Petitioner's innate talent and high-quality work but did not identify how he made an original contribution of major significance. His claimed technique lacked objective evidence of wide impact, and a patent and licensing contract submitted on appeal were not accepted because the Petitioner failed to provide them during the RFE response when specifically requested.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_02_B2203; source_row=29703 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The letters from two university officials did not provide sufficient specifics about dates, the nature of the Petitioner's authority as a judge, or whether the work judged was in the sound engineering field. The submitted email was not clearly addressed to the Petitioner and did not identify the students' field of study.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The letters from two university officials did not provide sufficient specifics about dates, the nature of the Petitioner's authority as a judge, or whether the work judged was in the sound engineering field. The submitted email was not clearly addressed to the Petitioner and did not identify the students' field of study.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_02_B2203; source_row=29702 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The comparative salary data from the government statistics office was insufficiently detailed, providing only averages across 'the sound engineering field' without specifying occupations, job titles, or salary ranges.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The comparative salary data from the government statistics office was insufficiently detailed, providing only averages across 'the sound engineering field' without specifying occupations, job titles, or salary ranges. Tax returns were not accompanied by evidence confirming the income derived solely from sound engineering work, and the evidence was insufficient to show remuneration was 'high' relative to similarly positioned peers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_02_B2203; source_row=29706 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's documented achievements were concentrated primarily in the 2015 season, with significant gaps in media coverage and acclaim before and after. The recommendation letters, team captaincies, and awards did not collectively show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner had risen to the very top of the 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 documented achievements were concentrated primarily in the 2015 season, with significant gaps in media coverage and acclaim before and after. The recommendation letters, team captaincies, and awards did not collectively show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner had risen to the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_03_B2203; source_row=29712 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was internally inconsistent—shifting from business consulting to cleaning-product distribution after filing—and that neither version demonstrated the broader prospective impact required for national importance. The post-filing acquisition of a new company was a material change that could not retroactively cure the deficient petition.…
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 found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was internally inconsistent—shifting from business consulting to cleaning-product distribution after filing—and that neither version demonstrated the broader prospective impact required for national importance. The post-filing acquisition of a new company was a material change that could not retroactively cure the deficient petition. Neither endeavor was shown to extend sufficiently beyond the Petitioner's own company to impact the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_01_B5203; source_row=29698 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agrees that the focus of the criterion is on the person's receipt of awards, not the employer's. There is no evidence from the issuing entities that these award programs were intended to recognize individual contributors, and the Petitioner has not shown that the cited non-precedent decisions were factually similar.
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 focus of the criterion is on the person's receipt of awards, not the employer's. There is no evidence from the issuing entities that these award programs were intended to recognize individual contributors, and the Petitioner has not shown that the cited non-precedent decisions were factually similar.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_01_B2203; source_row=29693 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 to meet the initial evidence requirement of three criteria.
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 to meet the initial evidence requirement of three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-04_02_B2203; source_row=29707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c