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 14741–14750
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not submit verifiable salary evidence such as tax documents or pay receipts. The Albanian salary data did not provide comparative data specifically for singers. As a result, neither the amount of her salary nor its relative standing was established.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not submit verifiable salary evidence such as tax documents or pay receipts. The Albanian salary data did not provide comparative data specifically for singers. As a result, neither the amount of her salary nor its relative standing was established.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=23870 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters confirmed the Petitioner's participation and employment but did not describe her specific role or indicate that her participation was critical to the success of the organizations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters confirmed the Petitioner's participation and employment but did not describe her specific role or indicate that her participation was critical to the success of the organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=23869 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 formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in passing that the record would not support the required level of expertise.
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 formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in passing that the record would not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=23872 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary meets DOL-certified job requirements by priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's three-year Indian bachelor's degree does not equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree, so qualifying experience can only be counted from the date of his master's degree (February 2013). His post-master's experience with the former employer is ~2 years 7 months; experience in a different role with the Petitioner is ~1 year 3 months; experience in the same role at the Petitioner is excluded under 20 C.F.R.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's three-year Indian bachelor's degree does not equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree, so qualifying experience can only be counted from the date of his master's degree (February 2013). His post-master's experience with the former employer is ~2 years 7 months; experience in a different role with the Petitioner is ~1 year 3 months; experience in the same role at the Petitioner is excluded under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3). The total falls short of the required five years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-18_01_B5203; source_row=23863 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay combined proffered wages of multiple petitions
Why AAO was not persuaded
USCIS records indicate the Petitioner filed three other petitions approved as of February 8, 2018, meaning the Petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay the combined proffered wages of all such petitions. On remand, the Director must notify the Petitioner of these other petitions and afford it an opportunity to provide relevant information.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
USCIS records indicate the Petitioner filed three other petitions approved as of February 8, 2018, meaning the Petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay the combined proffered wages of all such petitions. On remand, the Director must notify the Petitioner of these other petitions and afford it an opportunity to provide relevant information.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-18_01_B5203; source_row=23862 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay proffered wage for priority date year (2018)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the priority date falls in 2018, the Director should have requested 2018 financial evidence rather than relying solely on 2017 data. On remand, the Director must request 2018 tax returns or audited financials and consider the totality of circumstances including wages paid to the Beneficiary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the priority date falls in 2018, the Director should have requested 2018 financial evidence rather than relying solely on 2017 data. On remand, the Director must request 2018 tax returns or audited financials and consider the totality of circumstances including wages paid to the Beneficiary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-18_01_B5203; source_row=23861 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter confirmed the Petitioner's involvement but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role; it did not explain how organizing a one-time site inspection tour reflected a leading role or contributed significantly to the tour company's outcomes. The Petitioner also failed to establish that the organization enjoyed a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letter confirmed the Petitioner's involvement but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role; it did not explain how organizing a one-time site inspection tour reflected a leading role or contributed significantly to the tour company's outcomes. The Petitioner also failed to establish that the organization enjoyed a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=23851 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner himself did not receive the award; rather, his company was a finalist. The regulation focuses on the alien's personal receipt of awards, not his employer's. Moreover, being a finalist was not shown to be tantamount to winning a prize, and the awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner himself did not receive the award; rather, his company was a finalist. The regulation focuses on the alien's personal receipt of awards, not his employer's. Moreover, being a finalist was not shown to be tantamount to winning a prize, and the awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=23848 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The articles were about the Petitioner's company, not about the Petitioner himself. The required author information was not included. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the websites constitute major media, as he did not explain the significance of the traffic rankings.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The articles were about the Petitioner's company, not about the Petitioner himself. The required author information was not included. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the websites constitute major media, as he did not explain the significance of the traffic rankings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=23850 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other28 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
Most of the 28 articles were about the Petitioner's company rather than the Petitioner herself, and the four articles that were about the Petitioner either lacked required author information or were published in outlets not shown to be professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Most of the 28 articles were about the Petitioner's company rather than the Petitioner herself, and the four articles that were about the Petitioner either lacked required author information or were published in outlets not shown to be professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-17_02_B2203; source_row=23856 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c