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.
New evidence on appeal (the Beneficiary's 2017 W-2) showed actual wages of $71,077, which is $14,120 below the $85,197 proffered wage, undercutting the Director's finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
New evidence on appeal (the Beneficiary's 2017 W-2) showed actual wages of $71,077, which is $14,120 below the $85,197 proffered wage, undercutting the Director's finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B5203; source_row=22916 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay combined proffered wages of all I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
The total combined wage shortfall for 2017 across all I-140 beneficiaries was $283,124.88, but without a 2017 tax return or equivalent financial statement, AAO could not assess whether the Petitioner's net income or net current assets were sufficient. The case was remanded to obtain that evidence. The two beneficiaries who left the company could not be excluded because their petitions were never withdrawn.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The total combined wage shortfall for 2017 across all I-140 beneficiaries was $283,124.88, but without a 2017 tax return or equivalent financial statement, AAO could not assess whether the Petitioner's net income or net current assets were sufficient. The case was remanded to obtain that evidence. The two beneficiaries who left the company could not be excluded because their petitions were never withdrawn.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B5203; source_row=22917 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherFounder
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The recommendation letters make unsupported, conclusory claims about the Petitioner's websites without providing detailed, specific information demonstrating impact on the overall field, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence for the letters' assertions.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters make unsupported, conclusory claims about the Petitioner's websites without providing detailed, specific information demonstrating impact on the overall field, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence for the letters' assertions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=22913 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherFounder
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record does not show 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 declined to formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record does not show the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=22915 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director, finding the record did not document a record of success in running a healthcare business, did not identify a source of U.S. funding, and did not show interest from U.S. customers, users, or investors.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director, finding the record did not document a record of success in running a healthcare business, did not identify a source of U.S. funding, and did not show interest from U.S. customers, users, or investors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-17_02_B5203; source_row=22907 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO held the misrepresentation material because failure to respond to the NOID/RFE shut off the line of inquiry into the Beneficiary's actual field of study, an inquiry that might have resulted in a determination of ineligibility.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held the misrepresentation material because failure to respond to the NOID/RFE shut off the line of inquiry into the Beneficiary's actual field of study, an inquiry that might have resulted in a determination of ineligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-17_01_B5203; source_row=22905 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Beneficiary and Petitioner submitted evidence containing false information because the F-1 diploma showed a degree in 'law' while the I-140 diploma showed a degree in 'law and business administration', with substantially different transcripts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Beneficiary and Petitioner submitted evidence containing false information because the F-1 diploma showed a degree in 'law' while the I-140 diploma showed a degree in 'law and business administration', with substantially different transcripts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-17_01_B5203; source_row=22903 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO inferred willfulness from the Beneficiary's provision of two different sets of diplomas and transcripts and the Petitioner's failure to explain the discrepancies despite the NOID/RFE opportunity.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO inferred willfulness from the Beneficiary's provision of two different sets of diplomas and transcripts and the Petitioner's failure to explain the discrepancies despite the NOID/RFE opportunity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-17_01_B5203; source_row=22904 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c