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.
Part H.14 describes an acceptable method for evaluating foreign credentials—not a lowered minimum educational standard. It does not permit acceptance of less than a master's degree or of combinations of lesser education and experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Part H.14 describes an acceptable method for evaluating foreign credentials—not a lowered minimum educational standard. It does not permit acceptance of less than a master's degree or of combinations of lesser education and experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-16_03_B5203; source_row=23012 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The submitted documents were not audited financial statements, contained internal inconsistencies with tax returns, did not cover years 2010-2012, and the Petitioner persistently failed to provide proffered wage information for its other I-140 beneficiaries despite repeated prior notifications.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted documents were not audited financial statements, contained internal inconsistencies with tax returns, did not cover years 2010-2012, and the Petitioner persistently failed to provide proffered wage information for its other I-140 beneficiaries despite repeated prior notifications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-16_01_B5203; source_row=23011 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 recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's skills but did not demonstrate specific contributions of major significance in the field. The film's wide release and speaking engagement also failed to show meaningful impact on the overall film industry.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's skills but did not demonstrate specific contributions of major significance in the field. The film's wide release and speaking engagement also failed to show meaningful impact on the overall film industry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-15_01_B2203; source_row=23008 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the Petitioner's film premiering at 400 movie theatres throughout the United States satisfied the artistic display criterion, disagreeing with the Director's finding on this criterion.
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 film premiering at 400 movie theatres throughout the United States satisfied the artistic display criterion, disagreeing with the Director's finding on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-15_01_B2203; source_row=23009 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 declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-15_01_B2203; source_row=23010 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO finds the Petitioner's research experience does not show he is well positioned to start, lead, and grow a drug development company, and the record lacks evidence of investor or industry interest. The publications and patents do not constitute a record of success, citations have not been shown to be frequent relative to the field, and patents have not led to commercial drug development.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the Petitioner's research experience does not show he is well positioned to start, lead, and grow a drug development company, and the record lacks evidence of investor or industry interest. The publications and patents do not constitute a record of success, citations have not been shown to be frequent relative to the field, and patents have not led to commercial drug development.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-14_04_B5203; source_row=23005 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via totality of circumstances (Sonegawa factors and investment account)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's tax return history did not demonstrate consistent growth or industry reputation. The investment account could not be counted as a current asset because it was not listed as such on the federal income tax returns, and the Petitioner failed to show it had the necessary liquidity to cover proffered wage obligations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's tax return history did not demonstrate consistent growth or industry reputation. The investment account could not be counted as a current asset because it was not listed as such on the federal income tax returns, and the Petitioner failed to show it had the necessary liquidity to cover proffered wage obligations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-14_01_B5203; source_row=23000 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via net income and net current assets
Why AAO was not persuaded
In 2015, the Petitioner's net income of $101,705 fell $86,750 short of the $188,455 wage deficit; in 2016, net income of $122,980 fell $154,949 short of the $277,929 deficit. In neither year did the Petitioner have any net current assets.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
In 2015, the Petitioner's net income of $101,705 fell $86,750 short of the $188,455 wage deficit; in 2016, net income of $122,980 fell $154,949 short of the $277,929 deficit. In neither year did the Petitioner have any net current assets.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-14_01_B5203; source_row=22999 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The wages paid to most of the Petitioner's 18 I-140 beneficiaries were below their proffered wages in 2015, 2016, and 2017, resulting in combined deficits of $188,455.12, $277,928.68, and $266,996.83 respectively.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The wages paid to most of the Petitioner's 18 I-140 beneficiaries were below their proffered wages in 2015, 2016, and 2017, resulting in combined deficits of $188,455.12, $277,928.68, and $266,996.83 respectively.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-08-14_01_B5203; source_row=22998 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c