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 17231–17240
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-22_01_B2203; source_row=21125 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has served as a judge at competitions, and AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated he meets this criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has served as a judge at competitions, and AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated he meets this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-22_01_B2203; source_row=21123 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that the Form 9141 in the record on appeal shows the position requires only 35 hours per week, not 40, so the Director's wage calculation was erroneous. With the correct figure, the Petitioner's financial evidence establishes ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the Form 9141 in the record on appeal shows the position requires only 35 hours per week, not 40, so the Director's wage calculation was erroneous. With the correct figure, the Petitioner's financial evidence establishes ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-21_01_B5203; source_row=21119 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary qualifications per labor certification
Why the evidence was persuasive
After reviewing additional documentation submitted in response to the RFE, AAO accepted that the Beneficiary has the requisite education and experience to meet the labor certification's alternate requirement of a bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
After reviewing additional documentation submitted in response to the RFE, AAO accepted that the Beneficiary has the requisite education and experience to meet the labor certification's alternate requirement of a bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_02_B5203; source_row=21117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate continuing ability to pay from the January 15, 2013 priority date. The Beneficiary was underpaid by $1,778.10 in 2013, and the Petitioner's net current assets of $7,907 were insufficient when accounting for the combined shortfall of $69,433.86 owed to two other I-140 beneficiaries in 2013.…
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 continuing ability to pay from the January 15, 2013 priority date. The Beneficiary was underpaid by $1,778.10 in 2013, and the Petitioner's net current assets of $7,907 were insufficient when accounting for the combined shortfall of $69,433.86 owed to two other I-140 beneficiaries in 2013. Missing W-2s and tax return for 2015 further prevented a complete showing, and the overall business trajectory showed decline rather than growth.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_02_B5203; source_row=21118 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary possession of required 5 years qualifying experience by priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's own letter established only ~3 years 2 months of pre-priority-date qualifying experience. No corroborating letter from the claimed Indian employer was submitted to establish the additional ~4 years 7 months of foreign experience, leaving the Beneficiary short of the required 5-year minimum.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's own letter established only ~3 years 2 months of pre-priority-date qualifying experience. No corroborating letter from the claimed Indian employer was submitted to establish the additional ~4 years 7 months of foreign experience, leaving the Beneficiary short of the required 5-year minimum.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_01_B5203; source_row=21116 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via net income and net current assets
Why AAO was not persuaded
The 2014 tax return and financial statements reflected negative net income and net current assets, failing to cover the difference between wages paid and the proffered wage. The 2015 financials were sufficient individually but did not cure the 2014 deficiency, and the 2015 profits appeared to result from a one-time $60 million sale.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The 2014 tax return and financial statements reflected negative net income and net current assets, failing to cover the difference between wages paid and the proffered wage. The 2015 financials were sufficient individually but did not cure the 2014 deficiency, and the 2015 profits appeared to result from a one-time $60 million sale.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_01_B5203; source_row=21111 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via totality of business circumstances (Sonegawa factors)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner could not document that its 2014 financial losses were aberrational compared to prior years, as the record contained only 2014 and 2015 tax/financial data and a net operating loss carryover indicated prior losses too. Business reputation was unsupported by documentation, and the Petitioner faced a heavier burden than Sonegawa because it had multiple pending I-140 petitions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner could not document that its 2014 financial losses were aberrational compared to prior years, as the record contained only 2014 and 2015 tax/financial data and a net operating loss carryover indicated prior losses too. Business reputation was unsupported by documentation, and the Petitioner faced a heavier burden than Sonegawa because it had multiple pending I-140 petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_01_B5203; source_row=21115 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Beneficiary was paid $66,633.49 in 2014 and $77,906.39 in 2015, neither of which equaled the annual proffered wage of $91,520. The prorated 2014 wage after the priority date was also not met.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary was paid $66,633.49 in 2014 and $77,906.39 in 2015, neither of which equaled the annual proffered wage of $91,520. The prorated 2014 wage after the priority date was also not met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_01_B5203; source_row=21110 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The bank account funds were presumed to be already included in the current asset amounts reflected in the 2014 tax return and financial statements, which were already considered in the net current asset analysis. The bank statements therefore added nothing new.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The bank account funds were presumed to be already included in the current asset amounts reflected in the 2014 tax return and financial statements, which were already considered in the net current asset analysis. The bank statements therefore added nothing new.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-02-17_01_B5203; source_row=21114 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c