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 beneficiary was paid only $62,733.46 in 2013 and approximately $67,964 annualized in 2014, far below the $156,998 proffered wage. The petitioner's 2013 net income of $43,251 and net current assets of $216,636 were insufficient when accounting for obligations to multiple beneficiaries, and the petitioner failed to provide information about the second beneficiary.…
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 only $62,733.46 in 2013 and approximately $67,964 annualized in 2014, far below the $156,998 proffered wage. The petitioner's 2013 net income of $43,251 and net current assets of $216,636 were insufficient when accounting for obligations to multiple beneficiaries, and the petitioner failed to provide information about the second beneficiary. AAO rejected combining net income and net current assets as impermissible double-counting. The totality of circumstances, including a dramatic revenue decline, did not support ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-05_01_B5203; source_row=19406 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's work experience as a Russian translator/interpreter and software developer and his educational background were relevant, but he submitted no evidence of experience developing linguistic software specifically, nor did the evidence establish the significance of his achievements as a linguist or software developer.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's work experience as a Russian translator/interpreter and software developer and his educational background were relevant, but he submitted no evidence of experience developing linguistic software specifically, nor did the evidence establish the significance of his achievements as a linguist or software developer. The petitioner therefore failed to show a past record of achievement that would justify projections of future national benefit.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-05_02_B5203; source_row=19410 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner submitted general evidence about the importance of translation services and technology (NVTC website, DoD slides, job postings) but failed to provide specific information about his proposed linguistic mobile applications — what functions they would offer, which languages they would translate, or how they would improve on existing applications.…
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted general evidence about the importance of translation services and technology (NVTC website, DoD slides, job postings) but failed to provide specific information about his proposed linguistic mobile applications — what functions they would offer, which languages they would translate, or how they would improve on existing applications. Without such evidence, AAO could not determine that the benefits would be national in scope.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-05_02_B5203; source_row=19409 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
Both the director and AAO found that the petitioner's proposed area of employment — developing linguistic mobile applications — has substantial intrinsic merit.
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 +
Both the director and AAO found that the petitioner's proposed area of employment — developing linguistic mobile applications — has substantial intrinsic merit.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-05_02_B5203; source_row=19408 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
After reviewing the additional evidence submitted on appeal — pay records for 2013 and 2014 and an amended federal income tax return for 2013 — AAO found it more likely than not that the petitioner demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
After reviewing the additional evidence submitted on appeal — pay records for 2013 and 2014 and an amended federal income tax return for 2013 — AAO found it more likely than not that the petitioner demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-03_01_B5203; source_row=19405 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner, as a makeup artist and stylist, is not in the performing arts and did not submit evidence of box office receipts or record/video sales as required by the criterion. As to comparable evidence, the petitioner submitted only conclusory statements without supporting financial documentation such as actual revenue or profit figures, which was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner, as a makeup artist and stylist, is not in the performing arts and did not submit evidence of box office receipts or record/video sales as required by the criterion. As to comparable evidence, the petitioner submitted only conclusory statements without supporting financial documentation such as actual revenue or profit figures, which was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-01_01_B2203; source_row=19394 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner submitted two letters bearing the same date that provided conflicting information about the position he held (Director of Training Department vs. Director of Entertainment Department), which is inconsistent with his resume listing him as Entertainment Manager. The petitioner provided no independent evidence to reconcile the inconsistency.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted two letters bearing the same date that provided conflicting information about the position he held (Director of Training Department vs. Director of Entertainment Department), which is inconsistent with his resume listing him as Entertainment Manager. The petitioner provided no independent evidence to reconcile the inconsistency. Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the organizations had a distinguished reputation, relying only on self-promotional evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-01_01_B2203; source_row=19393 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters were vague and conclusory, failed to show how the beneficiary's role compared to others on the team, and did not demonstrate that his participation was individually critical. Additionally, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation establishing that either organization had a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters were vague and conclusory, failed to show how the beneficiary's role compared to others on the team, and did not demonstrate that his participation was individually critical. Additionally, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation establishing that either organization had a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-01_02_B2203; source_row=19403 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
Articles authored by the beneficiary are not articles about the beneficiary, articles citing the beneficiary's work are about the authors' own work and not about the beneficiary, and research grants do not constitute published material about the beneficiary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Articles authored by the beneficiary are not articles about the beneficiary, articles citing the beneficiary's work are about the authors' own work and not about the beneficiary, and research grants do not constitute published material about the beneficiary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-01_02_B2203; source_row=19399 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Patents demonstrate originality but not major significance; the product's impact was prospective and not yet established at time of filing; approximately 40 citations show some interest but are not an automatic indicator of major significance; and recommendation letters were vague, solicited, and merely repeated regulatory language without providing specific examples of how the beneficiary's work already influenced the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Patents demonstrate originality but not major significance; the product's impact was prospective and not yet established at time of filing; approximately 40 citations show some interest but are not an automatic indicator of major significance; and recommendation letters were vague, solicited, and merely repeated regulatory language without providing specific examples of how the beneficiary's work already influenced the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-06-01_02_B2203; source_row=19401 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c