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 15641–15650
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that without corroborating circulation data and comparative media market analyses, the publications, blogs, and television interviews could not be established as major media. Advertisements written by or on behalf of the Petitioner are self-promotional and not probative.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that without corroborating circulation data and comparative media market analyses, the publications, blogs, and television interviews could not be established as major media. Advertisements written by or on behalf of the Petitioner are self-promotional and not probative.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-05_01_B2203; source_row=22845 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
AAO found that while the Petitioner is a well-known local artist whose work has been purchased and used by local businesses, the evidence does not show her work has influenced the broader fields of photography or fashion design. Magazine cover credits and museum inclusion were not shown to constitute contributions 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 that while the Petitioner is a well-known local artist whose work has been purchased and used by local businesses, the evidence does not show her work has influenced the broader fields of photography or fashion design. Magazine cover credits and museum inclusion were not shown to constitute contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-05_01_B2203; source_row=22846 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO overturned the Director's finding as to one restaurant, concluding that evidence showing the Petitioner redesigned the entire restaurant, installed artwork, and contributed to increased customer traffic and a national award nomination demonstrated a critical role for that establishment.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO overturned the Director's finding as to one restaurant, concluding that evidence showing the Petitioner redesigned the entire restaurant, installed artwork, and contributed to increased customer traffic and a national award nomination demonstrated a critical role for that establishment.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-07-05_01_B2203; source_row=22848 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's 2016 net income of $19,583 and net current assets of $30,904 are each less than the $36,405.44 shortfall between the proffered wage and wages paid, so neither satisfies the ability-to-pay requirement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's 2016 net income of $19,583 and net current assets of $30,904 are each less than the $36,405.44 shortfall between the proffered wage and wages paid, so neither satisfies the ability-to-pay requirement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=22842 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner paid $45,546.56 in 2016, which does not meet the $81,952 annual proffered wage. USCIS policy does not permit proration of the proffered wage, and even if it did, the W-2 includes pre-priority-date payments and so would not establish ability to pay the prorated wage after the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner paid $45,546.56 in 2016, which does not meet the $81,952 annual proffered wage. USCIS policy does not permit proration of the proffered wage, and even if it did, the W-2 includes pre-priority-date payments and so would not establish ability to pay the prorated wage after the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=22841 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO considered the Sonegawa factors but found them insufficient. The missing information about combined wage obligations prevented a full analysis, and while the Petitioner had operated since 2011 and employed 16 people with growing revenues, it lacked a historical growth pattern, failed to address Sonegawa mitigating factors, and faced a substantial time period requiring ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO considered the Sonegawa factors but found them insufficient. The missing information about combined wage obligations prevented a full analysis, and while the Petitioner had operated since 2011 and employed 16 people with growing revenues, it lacked a historical growth pattern, failed to address Sonegawa mitigating factors, and faced a substantial time period requiring ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=22844 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
A petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all concurrent petitions. The Petitioner did not provide the required evidence, and it was the Petitioner's burden to do so—the Director's decision notified it of the deficiency and the Petitioner could have submitted the evidence on appeal but did not.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
A petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all concurrent petitions. The Petitioner did not provide the required evidence, and it was the Petitioner's burden to do so—the Director's decision notified it of the deficiency and the Petitioner could have submitted the evidence on appeal but did not.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=22843 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Although the Petitioner showed continuous operations since 2011 and some revenue growth, it provided no historical data prior to 2015, did not claim uncharacteristic losses, had no evidence of outstanding industry reputation, and did not show replacement of a current employee. The need to cover combined proffered wages for multiple petitions further distinguished this case from Sonegawa.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner showed continuous operations since 2011 and some revenue growth, it provided no historical data prior to 2015, did not claim uncharacteristic losses, had no evidence of outstanding industry reputation, and did not show replacement of a current employee. The need to cover combined proffered wages for multiple petitions further distinguished this case from Sonegawa.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-06-29_01_B5203; source_row=22839 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c