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.
Wages actually paid to beneficiary equal to or exceeding proffered wage
Why AAO was not persuaded
The beneficiary received $66,000 in 2007, $81,000.06 in 2008, $23,333.36 in 2009, and $0 in 2010, all below the proffered wage of $85,000. Wages paid to other beneficiaries cannot establish ability to pay the proffered wage to this beneficiary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary received $66,000 in 2007, $81,000.06 in 2008, $23,333.36 in 2009, and $0 in 2010, all below the proffered wage of $85,000. Wages paid to other beneficiaries cannot establish ability to pay the proffered wage to this beneficiary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-21_03_B5203; source_row=14714 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Overall magnitude of business activities under Matter of Sonegawa
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner has been in business since 1994, but showed declining gross receipts every year since the priority date, no evidence of sound or outstanding business reputation, no evidence of historical growth or milestone achievements, and had other simultaneously pending petitions casting doubt on ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner has been in business since 1994, but showed declining gross receipts every year since the priority date, no evidence of sound or outstanding business reputation, no evidence of historical growth or milestone achievements, and had other simultaneously pending petitions casting doubt on ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-21_03_B5203; source_row=14717 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Net income sufficient to cover proffered wage shortfall
Why AAO was not persuaded
Net income was $124,750 (2007), $137,742 (2008), $72,596 (2009), and $56,734 (2010). While sufficient in some years given the wage shortfall, the petitioner had not established sufficient net income to pay the proffered wage for 2010, where it paid the beneficiary nothing and net income of $56,734 fell below the $85,000 proffered wage.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Net income was $124,750 (2007), $137,742 (2008), $72,596 (2009), and $56,734 (2010). While sufficient in some years given the wage shortfall, the petitioner had not established sufficient net income to pay the proffered wage for 2010, where it paid the beneficiary nothing and net income of $56,734 fell below the $85,000 proffered wage.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-21_03_B5203; source_row=14715 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found none of the awards qualified: they lacked evidence of nomination/selection process or number of candidates; supporting evidence came from award-issuing entities (self-promotional); awards to the petitioner's companies rather than the petitioner himself do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion; and online sources such as Wikipedia and Baidu were given minimal weight.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found none of the awards qualified: they lacked evidence of nomination/selection process or number of candidates; supporting evidence came from award-issuing entities (self-promotional); awards to the petitioner's companies rather than the petitioner himself do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion; and online sources such as Wikipedia and Baidu were given minimal weight.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=14701 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO disagreed with the director and found the petitioner did not meet this criterion. There was insufficient information about the second book, the petitioner's own statements were inconsistent about whether there was one or two books, and the regulation requires scholarly articles in the plural, so even one qualifying publication would be insufficient.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the director and found the petitioner did not meet this criterion. There was insufficient information about the second book, the petitioner's own statements were inconsistent about whether there was one or two books, and the regulation requires scholarly articles in the plural, so even one qualifying publication would be insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=14705 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the comparative article not sufficiently authoritative or specific to the grain industry, that its data was from 1998–2002 while the petitioner's salary was from 2009–2010, that the provincial salary index was geographically limited and not specific to grain, and that evidence of wages above average does not satisfy the requirement of showing a 'high' salary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the comparative article not sufficiently authoritative or specific to the grain industry, that its data was from 1998–2002 while the petitioner's salary was from 2009–2010, that the provincial salary index was geographically limited and not specific to grain, and that evidence of wages above average does not satisfy the requirement of showing a 'high' salary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=14707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the evidence failed to establish that any organization requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Member counts were large (195 and 436,000 members), and the evidence showed only that the Conference of All China Representatives recommends membership, not that recognized experts judge achievements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the evidence failed to establish that any organization requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Member counts were large (195 and 436,000 members), and the evidence showed only that the Conference of All China Representatives recommends membership, not that recognized experts judge achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=14702 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the supporting letters were conclusory and insufficient, the petitioner provided no evidence that companies outside his own used the machines, and no licensing contracts or trade journal coverage supported the claimed significance. The AAO also noted the regulation requires contributions in the plural, so even one qualifying contribution would be insufficient.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the supporting letters were conclusory and insufficient, the petitioner provided no evidence that companies outside his own used the machines, and no licensing contracts or trade journal coverage supported the claimed significance. The AAO also noted the regulation requires contributions in the plural, so even one qualifying contribution would be insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-20_01_B2203; source_row=14704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c