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.
ability to pay proffered wage to multiple beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the Petitioner did not meet its burden, finding no evidence of wages paid to the Beneficiary since the priority date, no documentation of which petitions were withdrawn, and no Sonegawa-type evidence to overcome the inadequacy of net income and net current assets.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner did not meet its burden, finding no evidence of wages paid to the Beneficiary since the priority date, no documentation of which petitions were withdrawn, and no Sonegawa-type evidence to overcome the inadequacy of net income and net current assets.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-05_03_B5203; source_row=23570 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
84 months of progressive experience in supply chain management
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO credited only two employment periods (approximately 22 months combined), far short of the 84-month requirement. For one employer, emails were accepted as substitute evidence; for another, the email writer's relationship to the Beneficiary was unverified; for a third, the petitioner failed to show that a compliant letter from the successor entity was unavailable.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO credited only two employment periods (approximately 22 months combined), far short of the 84-month requirement. For one employer, emails were accepted as substitute evidence; for another, the email writer's relationship to the Beneficiary was unverified; for a third, the petitioner failed to show that a compliant letter from the successor entity was unavailable.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-05_01_B5203; source_row=23566 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Special skills required by Part H.14 of the labor certification
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the totality of the record establishes the Beneficiary has all required special skills under Part H.14, and withdrew this portion of the Director's decision.
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 totality of the record establishes the Beneficiary has all required special skills under Part H.14, and withdrew this portion of the Director's decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-05_01_B5203; source_row=23567 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although AAO agreed the Petitioner's roles were leading or critical, the organizations were not shown to have distinguished reputations. The submitted evidence (screenshots, tax documents, acquisition agreements) did not demonstrate eminent reputations for the organizations involved.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although AAO agreed the Petitioner's roles were leading or critical, the organizations were not shown to have distinguished reputations. The submitted evidence (screenshots, tax documents, acquisition agreements) did not demonstrate eminent reputations for the organizations involved.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-04_02_B2203; source_row=23547 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the Petitioner showed initial accolades and commercial success for his applications, the record did not demonstrate that these contributions had major significance to the broader field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While the Petitioner showed initial accolades and commercial success for his applications, the record did not demonstrate that these contributions had major significance to the broader field. Media coverage announced new products rather than showing field-wide impact; recommendation letters were conclusory and did not explain how the work influenced the field; and acquisition of a website was not shown to constitute major significance beyond the acquiring company.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-04_02_B2203; source_row=23546 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The articles reported on the release of a computer application but did not mention the Petitioner personally. Published material must be about the petitioner, not merely about a product they developed.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The articles reported on the release of a computer application but did not mention the Petitioner personally. Published material must be about the petitioner, not merely about a product they developed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-04_02_B2203; source_row=23544 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the totality of the evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the tango field.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the totality of the evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the tango field. Press coverage was limited and dated, judging experience was not shown to be distinguishing, performances lacked evidence of wide critical acclaim, and recommendation letters praised personal impact without establishing field-wide significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-04_04_B2203; source_row=23556 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reaffirmed that the Diploma of Merit was issued by a regional authority and not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized; the 2005 Innovare prize was not shown to be the Innovare International Award (which did not exist before 2010); and the other awards are local or regional in scope.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed that the Diploma of Merit was issued by a regional authority and not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized; the 2005 Innovare prize was not shown to be the Innovare International Award (which did not exist before 2010); and the other awards are local or regional in scope.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-02-04_01_B2203; source_row=23543 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c