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.
judging the work of others in the same or allied field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined to submit evidence at that stage, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined to submit evidence at that stage, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-09_01_B2203; source_row=17390 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-09_01_B2203; source_row=17391 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
What the decision said
The petitioner did not identify any factual or legal error relating to this criterion on appeal, so USCIS concluded the petitioner abandoned this claim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner did not identify any factual or legal error relating to this criterion on appeal, so USCIS concluded the petitioner abandoned this claim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-09_01_B2203; source_row=17388 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net income ($10,276 in 2009; $3,891 in 2010) and net current assets ($33,624 in 2009; $0 in 2010) were both insufficient to bridge the gap between wages paid ($28,000 in 2009; $49,500 in 2010) and the proffered wage ($74,880/year). Bank statements are not among the enumerated types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot 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 +
Net income ($10,276 in 2009; $3,891 in 2010) and net current assets ($33,624 in 2009; $0 in 2010) were both insufficient to bridge the gap between wages paid ($28,000 in 2009; $49,500 in 2010) and the proffered wage ($74,880/year). Bank statements are not among the enumerated types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot demonstrate sustainable ability to pay. The leave-of-absence argument was unsupported by paystubs or documentation. Projected future income is impermissible under Matter of Great Wall. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis also failed for lack of supporting evidence on historical growth, reputation, or other factors. The petitioner also failed to address its obligation to pay all ten concurrently filed I-140 beneficiaries.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B5203; source_row=17385 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The two experience letters submitted did not specify whether the beneficiary's work was full-time or part-time, making it impossible to confirm the required five years of progressive experience as a software engineer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The two experience letters submitted did not specify whether the beneficiary's work was full-time or part-time, making it impossible to confirm the required five years of progressive experience as a software engineer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B5203; source_row=17386 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record did not establish that the petitioner actually paid employee salaries, employed anyone directly, or would serve as the beneficiary's actual employer, failing the common-law control test.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record did not establish that the petitioner actually paid employee salaries, employed anyone directly, or would serve as the beneficiary's actual employer, failing the common-law control test.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B5203; source_row=17387 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
one year of qualifying employment abroad in the three years preceding admission
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO finds the inconsistencies unresolved and counsel's explanations unsupported by independent evidence; the appointment certificate dated February 18, 2008 implausibly states exact employment end dates, and the petitioner has not shown the requisite one year of qualifying foreign employment.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the inconsistencies unresolved and counsel's explanations unsupported by independent evidence; the appointment certificate dated February 18, 2008 implausibly states exact employment end dates, and the petitioner has not shown the requisite one year of qualifying foreign employment.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B2203; source_row=17382 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
prospective employment in the U.S. in a managerial or executive capacity
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO finds the NOID-response duty list bore almost no resemblance to the originally provided description, includes non-executive tasks like daily warehouse tours and meetings with a database administrator, and that counsel's typographical-error explanation for the employee-count discrepancy is unsupported.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the NOID-response duty list bore almost no resemblance to the originally provided description, includes non-executive tasks like daily warehouse tours and meetings with a database administrator, and that counsel's typographical-error explanation for the employee-count discrepancy is unsupported.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B2203; source_row=17384 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO finds the duties overly general and vague, with no detail as to daily activities, and notes that the unresolved inconsistencies regarding foreign employment dates independently preclude approval.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the duties overly general and vague, with no detail as to daily activities, and notes that the unresolved inconsistencies regarding foreign employment dates independently preclude approval.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-06_01_B2203; source_row=17383 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
national interest served to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that counsel's assertion that no identically effective teacher could be found through labor certification was unsupported by evidence, and that any objective qualifications required for the occupation can be articulated in a labor certification application. The petitioner's mere qualifications for the job do not warrant a waiver.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that counsel's assertion that no identically effective teacher could be found through labor certification was unsupported by evidence, and that any objective qualifications required for the occupation can be articulated in a labor certification application. The petitioner's mere qualifications for the job do not warrant a waiver.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-12-05_12_B5203; source_row=17375 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c