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.
AAO considered the totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa but found no paralleling facts sufficient to establish ability to pay. The petitioner did not submit evidence of business reputation, uncharacteristic expenditures or losses, or that the beneficiary was replacing a former employee.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO considered the totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa but found no paralleling facts sufficient to establish ability to pay. The petitioner did not submit evidence of business reputation, uncharacteristic expenditures or losses, or that the beneficiary was replacing a former employee.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-19_04_B5203; source_row=15506 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net current assets sufficient to pay proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
Net current assets were -$274,918 in 2009 and -$405,743 in 2010. The petitioner's claim that liabilities were misleading was rejected because no supporting documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate that the listed liabilities had already been accounted for.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Net current assets were -$274,918 in 2009 and -$405,743 in 2010. The petitioner's claim that liabilities were misleading was rejected because no supporting documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate that the listed liabilities had already been accounted for.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-19_04_B5203; source_row=15505 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
beneficiary possessed minimum education stated on labor certification as of priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the credentials evaluations unpersuasive because they reach contradictory conclusions and rely on unsubstantiated credit assignments. AAO preferred the EDGE database, which deems an Indian three-year B.Com comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study, and found no evidence the NIIT PGD was an AICTE-approved post-bachelor program.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the credentials evaluations unpersuasive because they reach contradictory conclusions and rely on unsubstantiated credit assignments. AAO preferred the EDGE database, which deems an Indian three-year B.Com comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study, and found no evidence the NIIT PGD was an AICTE-approved post-bachelor program.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-19_09_B5203; source_row=15513 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
60 months of qualifying experience as market research analyst
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the experience letters insufficient because they did not show the beneficiary performed the specific job duties listed in Part H.11 of the ETA Form 9089.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the experience letters insufficient because they did not show the beneficiary performed the specific job duties listed in Part H.11 of the ETA Form 9089.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-19_08_B5203; source_row=15512 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed the Director's finding, noting that the petitioner offered no new facts, documentation, or legal argument on motion sufficient to overcome the prior determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed the Director's finding, noting that the petitioner offered no new facts, documentation, or legal argument on motion sufficient to overcome the prior determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-19_05_B5203; source_row=15507 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's approval, finding that the only comparative evidence was a single unsworn, unsourced letter comparing the petitioner's salary to the average Nepali actress rather than to top earners in the field, which was insufficient under the regulation's requirement to show high salary relative to others in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the director's approval, finding that the only comparative evidence was a single unsworn, unsourced letter comparing the petitioner's salary to the average Nepali actress rather than to top earners in the field, which was insufficient under the regulation's requirement to show high salary relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-18_02_B2203; source_row=15468 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While the AAO noted that the director incorrectly stated no evidence was submitted, the AAO found that none of the submitted evidence constituted box office receipts or actual sales figures as required by the plain language of the regulation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the AAO noted that the director incorrectly stated no evidence was submitted, the AAO found that none of the submitted evidence constituted box office receipts or actual sales figures as required by the plain language of the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-18_02_B2203; source_row=15469 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
The AAO found that counsel failed to identify any specific error in the director's decision or any original contributions of major significance, essentially abandoning the claim on appeal by providing only a generalized, non-specific assertion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that counsel failed to identify any specific error in the director's decision or any original contributions of major significance, essentially abandoning the claim on appeal by providing only a generalized, non-specific assertion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-18_02_B2203; source_row=15467 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 in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Kamana article lacked required author information, and the petitioner failed to submit independent evidence establishing Kamana as major media. The Kollywood article lacked required date and author, and no evidence was submitted establishing Kollywood as a qualifying publication. Broad references to other previously submitted materials without specific argument were insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Kamana article lacked required author information, and the petitioner failed to submit independent evidence establishing Kamana as major media. The Kollywood article lacked required date and author, and no evidence was submitted establishing Kollywood as a qualifying publication. Broad references to other previously submitted materials without specific argument were insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-12-18_02_B2203; source_row=15465 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c