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 13981–13990
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 reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold step-1 requirement, but noted in dicta that the record does not support 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 explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold step-1 requirement, but noted in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-19_01_B2203; source_row=24708 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed on appeal, as before, to provide any evidence or information about its other I-140 petitions and beneficiaries despite being put on notice that this was a primary ground for denial. Revenue and employee figures cited by the Petitioner do not appear in the annual report and are uncorroborated. Without this information, the total proffered wage obligation cannot be determined.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed on appeal, as before, to provide any evidence or information about its other I-140 petitions and beneficiaries despite being put on notice that this was a primary ground for denial. Revenue and employee figures cited by the Petitioner do not appear in the annual report and are uncorroborated. Without this information, the total proffered wage obligation cannot be determined.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-15_01_B5203; source_row=24704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Petitioner's own net income or net current assets sufficient to cover proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
The parent company's annual reports contain no separate net revenue or employee figures for the Petitioner itself, providing no independent financial picture of the Petitioner separate from its parent. The cited letter from the corporate secretary was never actually submitted and, even if it had been, would not have been convincing absent evidence about other I-140 obligations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The parent company's annual reports contain no separate net revenue or employee figures for the Petitioner itself, providing no independent financial picture of the Petitioner separate from its parent. The cited letter from the corporate secretary was never actually submitted and, even if it had been, would not have been convincing absent evidence about other I-140 obligations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-15_01_B5203; source_row=24703 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Wages paid to beneficiary equal to or exceeding proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's 2018 gross pay of $83,381.40 was below the proffered wage of $110,510, so the Petitioner did not establish ability to pay through wages paid.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's 2018 gross pay of $83,381.40 was below the proffered wage of $110,510, so the Petitioner did not establish ability to pay through wages paid.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-15_01_B5203; source_row=24702 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Uzbekistan Republican Championship is inherently national in scope, drawing participants only from regions within Uzbekistan, and the Petitioner did not show it attracts significant attention outside Uzbekistan. AAO noted that qualifying awards must be global in scope and internationally recognized as one of the top awards 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 found that the Uzbekistan Republican Championship is inherently national in scope, drawing participants only from regions within Uzbekistan, and the Petitioner did not show it attracts significant attention outside Uzbekistan. AAO noted that qualifying awards must be global in scope and internationally recognized as one of the top awards in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=24669 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the record lacked evidence establishing the nature of the judging role, and the Petitioner did not show he actually judged competitors (e.g., assigning points or determining winners) rather than merely acting as a referee enforcing rules.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record lacked evidence establishing the nature of the judging role, and the Petitioner did not show he actually judged competitors (e.g., assigning points or determining winners) rather than merely acting as a referee enforcing rules.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=24673 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
AAO found the supporting letters were of questionable origin due to near-identical language, and they merely repeated regulatory language without explaining how the Petitioner's accomplishments impacted or influenced others in the field. Winning competitions is separately covered under criterion (i) and does not inherently constitute an original contribution of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the supporting letters were of questionable origin due to near-identical language, and they merely repeated regulatory language without explaining how the Petitioner's accomplishments impacted or influenced others in the field. Winning competitions is separately covered under criterion (i) and does not inherently constitute an original contribution of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=24674 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record did not sufficiently establish the nature of the Petitioner's role, whether it was for the entire school/club or a single team, or the distinguished reputation of either the school or any individual team. The record also did not clarify the organization's structure across what was a span of nearly 20 years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record did not sufficiently establish the nature of the Petitioner's role, whether it was for the entire school/club or a single team, or the distinguished reputation of either the school or any individual team. The record also did not clarify the organization's structure across what was a span of nearly 20 years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=24676 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the criterion was not met. The submitted articles lacked required publication information, post-dated the petition filing, or were from publications not shown to qualify as major media. No objective evidence established the circulation or prominence of the publications.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was not met. The submitted articles lacked required publication information, post-dated the petition filing, or were from publications not shown to qualify as major media. No objective evidence established the circulation or prominence of the publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=24672 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c