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.
AAO accepted the recalculation showing 2014 net current assets of $186,972 exceeded the $58,000 proffered wage and held the Petitioner established its continuing 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 accepted the recalculation showing 2014 net current assets of $186,972 exceeded the $58,000 proffered wage and held the Petitioner established its continuing ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-20_02_B5203; source_row=21810 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay the proffered wage from priority date onward
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that net income and net current assets in 2014 and 2015 did not individually cover the wage gap, but applying the Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis, AAO found the Petitioner's gross receipts of $13–$20 million and overall business magnitude demonstrated ability to pay in those years. The Petitioner's ability to pay in 2016 was established by net income alone.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that net income and net current assets in 2014 and 2015 did not individually cover the wage gap, but applying the Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis, AAO found the Petitioner's gross receipts of $13–$20 million and overall business magnitude demonstrated ability to pay in those years. The Petitioner's ability to pay in 2016 was established by net income alone.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-20_03_B5203; source_row=21813 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI14 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to fully reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the minimum three criteria at step one, but noted in the alternative that the record in aggregate would not support the classification.
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 fully reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the minimum three criteria at step one, but noted in the alternative that the record in aggregate would not support the classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-20_01_B2203; source_row=21807 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner submitted multiple forged documents including falsified membership letters, judging appointment certificates, and an expert opinion letter, constituting false representations made in connection with the I-140 petition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner submitted multiple forged documents including falsified membership letters, judging appointment certificates, and an expert opinion letter, constituting false representations made in connection with the I-140 petition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-19_01_B2203; source_row=21801 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The misrepresentations regarding memberships, judging, leading role, and salary relate directly to the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and are therefore material to the Petitioner's eligibility.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The misrepresentations regarding memberships, judging, leading role, and salary relate directly to the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and are therefore material to the Petitioner's eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-19_01_B2203; source_row=21803 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing authorities. One award lacked evidence of recognition beyond the issuing organization, and two provincial certificates lacked evidence of national/international recognition or clear eligibility requirements, with a supporting letter presenting credibility concerns.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing authorities. One award lacked evidence of recognition beyond the issuing organization, and two provincial certificates lacked evidence of national/international recognition or clear eligibility requirements, with a supporting letter presenting credibility concerns.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-15_01_B2203; source_row=21790 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner failed to corroborate his salary from any specific entity; a single bank receipt is insufficient; and the salary comparator evidence was inadequate because it used unidentified sources or inapplicable categories such as startup CEOs.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner failed to corroborate his salary from any specific entity; a single bank receipt is insufficient; and the salary comparator evidence was inadequate because it used unidentified sources or inapplicable categories such as startup CEOs.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-09-15_01_B2203; source_row=21794 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c