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.
5 years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO independently issued a NOID and concludes the supplemented record (including the expert opinion and offer letters lacking duties and dates) still fails to reliably establish the Beneficiary's duties or dates of employment with the two prior employers. The Petitioner's claimed in-house systems administrator employment, even if accepted, lasted only 2 years, too brief to qualify.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO independently issued a NOID and concludes the supplemented record (including the expert opinion and offer letters lacking duties and dates) still fails to reliably establish the Beneficiary's duties or dates of employment with the two prior employers. The Petitioner's claimed in-house systems administrator employment, even if accepted, lasted only 2 years, too brief to qualify.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-30_01_B5203; source_row=21241 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
bona fide job opportunity open to U.S. workers (alien influence/control)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO finds the submitted materials non-responsive: they do not document the Petitioner's ownership history or substantiate that the Beneficiary's identification as a managing partner was an error, and the December 7, 2016 letter to Illinois sought only to 'update' rather than correct records. The revocation of the Illinois registration in 2011 does not show the Beneficiary ceased to be a managing partner.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the submitted materials non-responsive: they do not document the Petitioner's ownership history or substantiate that the Beneficiary's identification as a managing partner was an error, and the December 7, 2016 letter to Illinois sought only to 'update' rather than correct records. The revocation of the Illinois registration in 2011 does not show the Beneficiary ceased to be a managing partner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-30_01_B5203; source_row=21242 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concludes the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact and reinstates the labor certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO concludes the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact and reinstates the labor certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-30_01_B5203; source_row=21240 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO finds the Director's reliance on Matter of Shah misplaced because the labor certification refers to a 3-year foreign equivalent degree, not a 3-year foreign degree, and such equivalent degrees exist (e.g., certain UK 3-year baccalaureates).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the Director's reliance on Matter of Shah misplaced because the labor certification refers to a 3-year foreign equivalent degree, not a 3-year foreign degree, and such equivalent degrees exist (e.g., certain UK 3-year baccalaureates).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-30_01_B5203; source_row=21239 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance because the record did not show her work offers original innovations or has broader implications beyond her company and its business partners in the petroleum engineering field.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance because the record did not show her work offers original innovations or has broader implications beyond her company and its business partners in the petroleum engineering field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_01_B5203; source_row=21228 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive job offer and labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO acknowledged that some of the Petitioner's knowledge may exceed minimum job requirements, but found that she had not shown a significant benefit to the United States through her proposed endeavor, had not demonstrated an urgent national interest, had not shown safety innovations benefiting the nation if other qualified workers were available, and that the factors cited do not outweigh the benefits inherent in the la…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO acknowledged that some of the Petitioner's knowledge may exceed minimum job requirements, but found that she had not shown a significant benefit to the United States through her proposed endeavor, had not demonstrated an urgent national interest, had not shown safety innovations benefiting the nation if other qualified workers were available, and that the factors cited do not outweigh the benefits inherent in the labor certification process.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_01_B5203; source_row=21230 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
24 months qualifying experience in marketing management per labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The employer letters failed to provide a specific description of duties performed as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), offering only vague descriptions. Additionally, the Beneficiary's employment history from 2003–2006 was described inconsistently across multiple petitions and tax documents (W-2s showing tips indicating a server/gaucho role), and the Petitioner did not sufficiently overcome these inconsistencies.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The employer letters failed to provide a specific description of duties performed as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), offering only vague descriptions. Additionally, the Beneficiary's employment history from 2003–2006 was described inconsistently across multiple petitions and tax documents (W-2s showing tips indicating a server/gaucho role), and the Petitioner did not sufficiently overcome these inconsistencies.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_05_B5203; source_row=21238 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
intent to employ at location stated on labor certification
What the decision said
AAO disagreed that the prior NJ employment defeats the petition but found a USCIS site visit raised separate concerns about onsite employment capacity, warranting remand.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed that the prior NJ employment defeats the petition but found a USCIS site visit raised separate concerns about onsite employment capacity, warranting remand.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_02_B5203; source_row=21231 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
60 months of qualifying experience with required SAP skills
Why AAO was not persuaded
The prior employer letter omits many of the specific SAP technologies and skills listed in the labor certification, and the Beneficiary's experience with the Petitioner in the same role cannot be counted under DOL regulations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The prior employer letter omits many of the specific SAP technologies and skills listed in the labor certification, and the Beneficiary's experience with the Petitioner in the same role cannot be counted under DOL regulations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_02_B5203; source_row=21234 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the record insufficient to establish ability to pay and rejected the petitioner's argument that the RFE for other-beneficiary information was improper.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record insufficient to establish ability to pay and rejected the petitioner's argument that the RFE for other-beneficiary information was improper.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-29_02_B5203; source_row=21233 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c