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.
Specific skills requirement per Section H.14 of labor certification
What the decision said
AAO noted that the specific skills requirement in section H.14 was not addressed by the Director and remanded for consideration of this issue alongside the qualifying experience issue.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that the specific skills requirement in section H.14 was not addressed by the Director and remanded for consideration of this issue alongside the qualifying experience issue.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-14_02_B5203; source_row=26001 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Job opportunity in labor certification same as in petition
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Director's analysis deficient for failing to assess the evidence that job duties remained unchanged, but also found the record insufficient to make a positive determination due to unresolved questions about hiring requirements, O*NET wage levels, and potential management responsibilities at the Vice President level. The matter is remanded.
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 analysis deficient for failing to assess the evidence that job duties remained unchanged, but also found the record insufficient to make a positive determination due to unresolved questions about hiring requirements, O*NET wage levels, and potential management responsibilities at the Vice President level. The matter is remanded.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-14_02_B5203; source_row=25999 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Two years of qualifying experience as required by labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The experience letters do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because the authors are no longer employed by the referenced companies and the letters were not issued by those companies. The HR verification letter from one employer provides no job duty details. The Beneficiary's experience at that employer also lasted less than two years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The experience letters do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because the authors are no longer employed by the referenced companies and the letters were not issued by those companies. The HR verification letter from one employer provides no job duty details. The Beneficiary's experience at that employer also lasted less than two years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-14_02_B5203; source_row=26000 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
advanced degree qualification — accreditation at time of degree issuance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that when the Beneficiary's degree was issued in August 2011, the university was only 'pre-accredited,' which is not accreditation and does not assure eventual accreditation. Full accreditation was not obtained until December 2012. AAO held that accreditation must exist at the time of degree issuance, not merely at the petition's priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that when the Beneficiary's degree was issued in August 2011, the university was only 'pre-accredited,' which is not accreditation and does not assure eventual accreditation. Full accreditation was not obtained until December 2012. AAO held that accreditation must exist at the time of degree issuance, not merely at the petition's priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_03_B5203; source_row=25983 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Intention to employ beneficiary in area of intended employment per labor certification
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the DOL roving-worker policy requiring the 'various unanticipated locations' language did not apply because the position involved travel only within a single MSA, not throughout the United States. The Petitioner's imprecise description was a deficiency but not one warranting denial.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the DOL roving-worker policy requiring the 'various unanticipated locations' language did not apply because the position involved travel only within a single MSA, not throughout the United States. The Petitioner's imprecise description was a deficiency but not one warranting denial.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_04_B5203; source_row=25985 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO credited the wages paid ($85,056.02) and found only the $4,778.98 shortfall needed to be covered. Both net income ($17,362) and net current assets ($31,224) exceeded the shortfall, establishing ability to pay for the priority date year.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO credited the wages paid ($85,056.02) and found only the $4,778.98 shortfall needed to be covered. Both net income ($17,362) and net current assets ($31,224) exceeded the shortfall, establishing ability to pay for the priority date year.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_04_B5203; source_row=25986 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The credential evaluation relied on post-baccalaureate coursework rather than a single degree, so no master's equivalency was established. The Beneficiary's five-year Filipino bachelor's degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's, so five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience was required. The U.S.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The credential evaluation relied on post-baccalaureate coursework rather than a single degree, so no master's equivalency was established. The Beneficiary's five-year Filipino bachelor's degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's, so five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience was required. The U.S. employer letter lacked job duties, and unresolved discrepancies in Philippine employment history (overlapping employers, conflicting dates across visa applications and prior labor certification) meant qualifying progressive experience was not established. New appellate letters were rejected under Matter of Soriano.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_04_B5203; source_row=25984 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of post-baccalaureate qualifying experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter covering March 2013 to April 2014 did not describe the Beneficiary's experience as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), so without that year the Beneficiary fell short of the five-year post-baccalaureate requirement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letter covering March 2013 to April 2014 did not describe the Beneficiary's experience as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), so without that year the Beneficiary fell short of the five-year post-baccalaureate requirement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_01_B5203; source_row=25978 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $72,883 in 2018, which does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $107,806, leaving a $35,123 shortfall.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $72,883 in 2018, which does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $107,806, leaving a $35,123 shortfall.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_01_B5203; source_row=25974 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay under Sonegawa totality of circumstances
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, this Petitioner did not document uncharacteristic losses, an outstanding industry reputation, or that the Beneficiary was replacing a current employee. Revenue decreased more than 41% from 2017 to 2018, and the Petitioner had the added burden of covering multiple petitions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, this Petitioner did not document uncharacteristic losses, an outstanding industry reputation, or that the Beneficiary was replacing a current employee. Revenue decreased more than 41% from 2017 to 2018, and the Petitioner had the added burden of covering multiple petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-10_01_B5203; source_row=25977 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c