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 18451–18460
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion based on prior decisions; not separately argued in the instant motion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion based on prior decisions; not separately argued in the instant motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_02_B2203; source_row=19831 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the published material criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the published material criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_02_B2203; source_row=19826 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_02_B2203; source_row=19828 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net income sufficient to cover difference between proffered and actual wages
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's tax returns showed net losses of approximately $3.0 million in 2013 and $3.4 million in 2014. The CFO's assertions about future revenue growth were unsupported by documentary evidence and could not substitute for the required financial proof.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's tax returns showed net losses of approximately $3.0 million in 2013 and $3.4 million in 2014. The CFO's assertions about future revenue growth were unsupported by documentary evidence and could not substitute for the required financial proof.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_01_B5203; source_row=19821 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all pending/approved I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner filed I-140 petitions for two other beneficiaries but only provided wage and priority date information for one. Without complete information for all beneficiaries, the AAO could not determine whether the Petitioner could meet its combined proffered-wage obligations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner filed I-140 petitions for two other beneficiaries but only provided wage and priority date information for one. Without complete information for all beneficiaries, the AAO could not determine whether the Petitioner could meet its combined proffered-wage obligations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_01_B5203; source_row=19823 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Wages paid to beneficiary equal to or greater than proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary was paid $78,833.36 in 2013 and $73,929.81 in 2014, both below the $82,971.00 proffered wage. The AAO rejected the unpaid-vacation explanation, noting the proffered wage is an annual wage and actual wages paid are determinative.
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 $78,833.36 in 2013 and $73,929.81 in 2014, both below the $82,971.00 proffered wage. The AAO rejected the unpaid-vacation explanation, noting the proffered wage is an annual wage and actual wages paid are determinative.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_01_B5203; source_row=19820 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct the final merits determination because the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
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 the final merits determination because the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-06_02_B2203; source_row=19832 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO determined, on de novo review of the entire record, that the Petitioner more likely than not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO determined, on de novo review of the entire record, that the Petitioner more likely than not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-11-05_01_B5203; source_row=19818 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c