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 labor certification required 60 months of experience specifically in the job offered (systems analyst). Because the Petitioner declared in the labor certification that the programmer analyst role was not substantially comparable to the systems analyst role, that experience cannot count as experience 'in the job offered.' Furthermore, even combining all arguably qualifying experience still totals less than 60 months.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The labor certification required 60 months of experience specifically in the job offered (systems analyst). Because the Petitioner declared in the labor certification that the programmer analyst role was not substantially comparable to the systems analyst role, that experience cannot count as experience 'in the job offered.' Furthermore, even combining all arguably qualifying experience still totals less than 60 months.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-01-23_02_B5203; source_row=21028 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Petitioner conceded at least 4/6 standards readily applied, so comparable evidence is unavailable; corporate tax returns were not shown to be comparable to any specific listed criterion and did not show she stood apart from other small restaurant owners.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner conceded at least 4/6 standards readily applied, so comparable evidence is unavailable; corporate tax returns were not shown to be comparable to any specific listed criterion and did not show she stood apart from other small restaurant owners.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=21017 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
minimum educational credentials required by the labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed that the labor certification required an actual master's or foreign equivalent degree and that Part H.8 indicated no alternate combination was acceptable; the Beneficiary's credentials equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and Chintakuntla and the 2004 non-precedent decision do not compel a different result.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed that the labor certification required an actual master's or foreign equivalent degree and that Part H.8 indicated no alternate combination was acceptable; the Beneficiary's credentials equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and Chintakuntla and the 2004 non-precedent decision do not compel a different result.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-01-19_01_B5203; source_row=21010 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-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
Petitioner's 2010 W-2 income of $24,000 was below cited average small-business-owner salaries; her 2015 W-2 post-dated the petition's filing and in any event was not shown to reflect exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner's 2010 W-2 income of $24,000 was below cited average small-business-owner salaries; her 2015 W-2 post-dated the petition's filing and in any event was not shown to reflect exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=21014 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
Chamber of Commerce thank-you letter recognizing financial support and time was not recognition for industry-level achievements; documents post-dated filing; prior E-2 nonimmigrant approvals do not constitute recognition and do not bind USCIS in adjudicating an immigrant petition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Chamber of Commerce thank-you letter recognizing financial support and time was not recognition for industry-level achievements; documents post-dated filing; prior E-2 nonimmigrant approvals do not constitute recognition and do not bind USCIS in adjudicating an immigrant petition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=21016 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c