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 21571–21580
NIWNIW · National importanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
What the decision said
AAO does not separately analyze intrinsic merit; the dispositive issues are national scope and the comparison to a U.S. worker.
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 +
AAO does not separately analyze intrinsic merit; the dispositive issues are national scope and the comparison to a U.S. worker.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-10_04_B5203; source_row=16367 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO affirmed the director's favorable finding that the petitioner presented evidence of the display of his compositions at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO affirmed the director's favorable finding that the petitioner presented evidence of the display of his compositions at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-10_03_B2203; source_row=16363 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,010 papers
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider — legal error in prior AAO decision
Why AAO was not persuaded
The motion to reconsider largely restated previously rejected arguments, raised the salary criterion for the first time (having been abandoned on appeal), and failed to identify new law or a de novo legal error in the prior AAO decision. The AAO found no error in applying Matter of Katigbak to require eligibility as of the filing date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The motion to reconsider largely restated previously rejected arguments, raised the salary criterion for the first time (having been abandoned on appeal), and failed to identify new law or a de novo legal error in the prior AAO decision. The AAO found no error in applying Matter of Katigbak to require eligibility as of the filing date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-10_01_B2203; source_row=16347 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,010 papers
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen — new facts not previously available
Why AAO was not persuaded
Virtually all evidence had been previously submitted and rejected. The single new 2012 article added nothing because the record already contained evidence about the same athlete. The petitioner's health issues in 2002–2008 had no bearing on his ability to submit evidence at the time of the 2009 appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Virtually all evidence had been previously submitted and rejected. The single new 2012 article added nothing because the record already contained evidence about the same athlete. The petitioner's health issues in 2002–2008 had no bearing on his ability to submit evidence at the time of the 2009 appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-10_01_B2203; source_row=16348 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the certified ETA Form 9089 unambiguously requires only a bachelor's degree and 18 months of experience. The replacement form lacked DOL certification and had signature dates predating the certified form, making the typographical error claim untenable. Job advertisements were not new evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the certified ETA Form 9089 unambiguously requires only a bachelor's degree and 18 months of experience. The replacement form lacked DOL certification and had signature dates predating the certified form, making the typographical error claim untenable. Job advertisements were not new evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_03_B5203; source_row=16329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
advanced degree or equivalent (bachelor's plus 5 years progressive experience)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO accepted that the beneficiary holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree but found he lacks the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because none was listed on the certified labor certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO accepted that the beneficiary holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree but found he lacks the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because none was listed on the certified labor certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_10_B5203; source_row=16338 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via overall magnitude of business activities (Sonegawa totality)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the petitioner, while in business since 1993, presented no evidence of significant growth, outstanding business reputation, or uncharacteristic expenditures. The presence of 22 simultaneously pending immigrant petitions in light of its modest business size further undermined the realism of the job offer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner, while in business since 1993, presented no evidence of significant growth, outstanding business reputation, or uncharacteristic expenditures. The presence of 22 simultaneously pending immigrant petitions in light of its modest business size further undermined the realism of the job offer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_04_B5203; source_row=16334 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay via wages actually paid to beneficiary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The only W-2 submitted showed the beneficiary was paid $61,078.69 in 2010, far below the proffered wage, so prima facie ability to pay could not be established through wages paid.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The only W-2 submitted showed the beneficiary was paid $61,078.69 in 2010, far below the proffered wage, so prima facie ability to pay could not be established through wages paid.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_04_B5203; source_row=16330 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's net current assets as shown on tax return Schedule L were $79,877 in 2009 and $34,142 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage of $96,013.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's net current assets as shown on tax return Schedule L were $79,877 in 2009 and $34,142 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage of $96,013.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_04_B5203; source_row=16332 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While the petitioner's net income initially appeared sufficient to pay this single beneficiary, 22 simultaneously pending I-140 petitions created a combined proffered wage shortfall of $626,972, far exceeding the petitioner's net income in both relevant years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the petitioner's net income initially appeared sufficient to pay this single beneficiary, 22 simultaneously pending I-140 petitions created a combined proffered wage shortfall of $626,972, far exceeding the petitioner's net income in both relevant years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-08_04_B5203; source_row=16331 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c