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.
The cut ticket requests and retail website screenshots were not comparable to evidence of commercial success as required by the regulation (receipts or sales figures), because the Petitioner did not offer actual sales figures or other documentary evidence of commercial success relative to other retail fashions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The cut ticket requests and retail website screenshots were not comparable to evidence of commercial success as required by the regulation (receipts or sales figures), because the Petitioner did not offer actual sales figures or other documentary evidence of commercial success relative to other retail fashions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=21164 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for each claimed organization, and failed to establish that those organizations had a distinguished reputation. The self-promotional company profiles were insufficient, and the letters did not adequately show the Beneficiary's role in the organizational hierarchy or its impact on the companies' standing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for each claimed organization, and failed to establish that those organizations had a distinguished reputation. The self-promotional company profiles were insufficient, and the letters did not adequately show the Beneficiary's role in the organizational hierarchy or its impact on the companies' standing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=21163 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,005 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted articles were about a school fashion show or school events rather than about the Beneficiary personally, and the Petitioner did not establish that the publications constituted major media. A 2012 blog article was about the Beneficiary but the Petitioner did not show the blog qualifies as major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted articles were about a school fashion show or school events rather than about the Beneficiary personally, and the Petitioner did not establish that the publications constituted major media. A 2012 blog article was about the Beneficiary but the Petitioner did not show the blog qualifies as major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=21160 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,005 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record lacked corroborating evidence from major retailers identifying the Beneficiary as the originator of her design style, and the uncorroborated letters from colleagues were insufficient to show that her contributions had widely affected the industry beyond retail partnerships or risen to the level of major significance in the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The record lacked corroborating evidence from major retailers identifying the Beneficiary as the originator of her design style, and the uncorroborated letters from colleagues were insufficient to show that her contributions had widely affected the industry beyond retail partnerships or risen to the level of major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=21161 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Wages paid to beneficiary and other I-140 beneficiaries equal to or exceeding proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that for 2012 and 2013, the Petitioner paid the instant Beneficiary less than the proffered wage, and 32 other I-140 beneficiaries also received less than their proffered wages, creating aggregate deficiencies of $847,731.21 (2012) and $486,471.74 (2013).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that for 2012 and 2013, the Petitioner paid the instant Beneficiary less than the proffered wage, and 32 other I-140 beneficiaries also received less than their proffered wages, creating aggregate deficiencies of $847,731.21 (2012) and $486,471.74 (2013).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_03_B5203; source_row=21171 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net income sufficient to cover wage deficiencies for all I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's net income ($230,258 in 2012; $283,300 in 2013) was insufficient to cover the aggregate wage deficiencies ($847,731.21 in 2012; $486,471.74 in 2013). AAO rejected the software development cost and rent add-back arguments as unsupported and legally 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 Petitioner's net income ($230,258 in 2012; $283,300 in 2013) was insufficient to cover the aggregate wage deficiencies ($847,731.21 in 2012; $486,471.74 in 2013). AAO rejected the software development cost and rent add-back arguments as unsupported and legally improper.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_03_B5203; source_row=21172 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Totality of circumstances (Sonegawa) demonstrates ability to pay
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted its own Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis and found that the Petitioner's positive business growth in 2014 did not outweigh the consistently large wage deficiencies from 2010 through 2012 compared to net income and net current assets, and that ability to pay must be established from the priority date forward, not based on future eligibility.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted its own Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis and found that the Petitioner's positive business growth in 2014 did not outweigh the consistently large wage deficiencies from 2010 through 2012 compared to net income and net current assets, and that ability to pay must be established from the priority date forward, not based on future eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_03_B5203; source_row=21174 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net current assets sufficient to cover wage deficiencies for all I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that for 2012, net current assets ($704,598) were less than the aggregate wage deficiency ($847,731.21). AAO rejected bank statements as an acceptable form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and declined to treat software costs as increasing net current assets.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that for 2012, net current assets ($704,598) were less than the aggregate wage deficiency ($847,731.21). AAO rejected bank statements as an acceptable form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and declined to treat software costs as increasing net current assets.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_03_B5203; source_row=21173 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record established that the Beneficiary exhibited her work at a fashion show and that her fashion designs appeared in a window display, satisfying this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record established that the Beneficiary exhibited her work at a fashion show and that her fashion designs appeared in a window display, satisfying this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B2203; source_row=21162 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net current assets sufficient to cover proffered wage deficiencies
Why AAO was not persuaded
In 2012, net current assets of $704,598 were insufficient to cover the $847,731.21 total wage deficiency. Bank statements were rejected as they are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and do not demonstrate sustainable ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
In 2012, net current assets of $704,598 were insufficient to cover the $847,731.21 total wage deficiency. Bank statements were rejected as they are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and do not demonstrate sustainable ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-03-08_01_B5203; source_row=21168 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c