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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalResearcher
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through an unusually high citation count, groundbreaking contributions to porcine virus research, first commercialization of a serologic diagnostic test used by veterinarians across the U.S. and abroad, and substantial documentary corroboration.
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 demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through an unusually high citation count, groundbreaking contributions to porcine virus research, first commercialization of a serologic diagnostic test used by veterinarians across the U.S. and abroad, and substantial documentary corroboration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_01_B2203; source_row=21544 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner authored a considerable amount of published material in professional journals, including highly ranked publications, satisfying the scholarly articles criterion.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner authored a considerable amount of published material in professional journals, including highly ranked publications, satisfying the scholarly articles criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_01_B2203; source_row=21543 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalResearcher
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found this criterion satisfied because the Petitioner's article was extensively cited, recommendation letters detailed the impact of his findings, and his work was commercialized as a diagnostic test used by veterinarians.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found this criterion satisfied because the Petitioner's article was extensively cited, recommendation letters detailed the impact of his findings, and his work was commercialized as a diagnostic test used by veterinarians.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_01_B2203; source_row=21542 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The employment letter contained overlapping date ranges, and inconsistencies must be resolved by independent objective evidence under Matter of Ho. The certified employment period alone is insufficient to demonstrate 36 months of qualifying experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The employment letter contained overlapping date ranges, and inconsistencies must be resolved by independent objective evidence under Matter of Ho. The certified employment period alone is insufficient to demonstrate 36 months of qualifying experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_02_B5203; source_row=21548 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Master's degree in a required field of study per labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The credential evaluation did not compare the Beneficiary's graduate coursework to U.S. master's program curricula in computer science and failed to explain why a degree in 'computer applications' equates to 'computer science' as required by the labor certification rather than to related fields like CIS or MIS.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The credential evaluation did not compare the Beneficiary's graduate coursework to U.S. master's program curricula in computer science and failed to explain why a degree in 'computer applications' equates to 'computer science' as required by the labor certification rather than to related fields like CIS or MIS.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_01_B5203; source_row=21546 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the Petitioner actually paid the Beneficiary $104,205.30 in 2015—exceeding the $95,077 proffered wage—it was not required to demonstrate ability to pay the combined wages of other petitions in that same year.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner actually paid the Beneficiary $104,205.30 in 2015—exceeding the $95,077 proffered wage—it was not required to demonstrate ability to pay the combined wages of other petitions in that same year.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-30_01_B5203; source_row=21545 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Director erred in applying 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(2) to exclude non-traditional payments, but independently concluded that the $32,817.28 in direct payments could not be accepted as wages because the documentation was internally contradictory — the Petitioner's own list labeled 20 of 21 payments as loans, checks bore annotations referencing loan repayments, and the accounting firm described the amount as a lump…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director erred in applying 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(2) to exclude non-traditional payments, but independently concluded that the $32,817.28 in direct payments could not be accepted as wages because the documentation was internally contradictory — the Petitioner's own list labeled 20 of 21 payments as loans, checks bore annotations referencing loan repayments, and the accounting firm described the amount as a lump sum of withheld compensation rather than periodic wage payments.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=21537 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via totality of circumstances (Sonegawa)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the totality of the Petitioner's circumstances did not establish ability to pay. Although in business since 2005, the record lacked evidence of sustained financial or organizational growth, a well-known industry reputation, a large number of employees, or a significant payroll, and the Petitioner could not meet its payroll obligations without an unusual payment system.
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 Petitioner's circumstances did not establish ability to pay. Although in business since 2005, the record lacked evidence of sustained financial or organizational growth, a well-known industry reputation, a large number of employees, or a significant payroll, and the Petitioner could not meet its payroll obligations without an unusual payment system.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=21540 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that adding the Beneficiary's wages to the Petitioner's net current assets (negative $70,923 in 2014 and negative $75,979 in 2015) did not equal or exceed the proffered wage.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that adding the Beneficiary's wages to the Petitioner's net current assets (negative $70,923 in 2014 and negative $75,979 in 2015) did not equal or exceed the proffered wage.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-06-29_02_B5203; source_row=21539 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c