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 22981–22990
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
What the decision said
Counsel did not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments on appeal, so AAO considers the issue abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel did not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments on appeal, so AAO considers the issue abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-15_04_B2203; source_row=14666 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While the 2007 W-2 showed wages of $45,000.02 — slightly below the proffered wage — the petitioner's 2007 net income of $50,722 was sufficient to cover the $1,924.78 deficiency, satisfying the ability-to-pay standard.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the 2007 W-2 showed wages of $45,000.02 — slightly below the proffered wage — the petitioner's 2007 net income of $50,722 was sufficient to cover the $1,924.78 deficiency, satisfying the ability-to-pay standard.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-15_04_B5203; source_row=14669 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
beneficiary possesses qualifications stated in labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
The labor certification required a Physiotherapeutic Certificate among the beneficiary's qualifications. Despite an AAO RFE, the petitioner failed to submit the certificate, and no evidence in the record demonstrated the beneficiary held it as of the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The labor certification required a Physiotherapeutic Certificate among the beneficiary's qualifications. Despite an AAO RFE, the petitioner failed to submit the certificate, and no evidence in the record demonstrated the beneficiary held it as of the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-15_04_B5203; source_row=14670 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker with same minimum qualifications
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found no documentary evidence that the petitioner's methods had been adopted by other organizations, that her two claimed citations were trivial, that witness letters asserting national impact lacked corroboration, and that her unexplained resignation raised questions about her commitment and demand for her services.
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 no documentary evidence that the petitioner's methods had been adopted by other organizations, that her two claimed citations were trivial, that witness letters asserting national impact lacked corroboration, and that her unexplained resignation raised questions about her commitment and demand for her services.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-15_01_B5203; source_row=14647 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the petitioner's claimed national scope was not supported by documentary evidence. Presentations at professional gatherings and witness assertions of national impact were unsupported by evidence of actual implementation by other organizations.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the petitioner's claimed national scope was not supported by documentary evidence. Presentations at professional gatherings and witness assertions of national impact were unsupported by evidence of actual implementation by other organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-15_01_B5203; source_row=14646 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence that the CLIO Awards or One Show Interactive Award are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field beyond the awarding entities, declining to give weight to self-serving promotional letters or to Wikipedia.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence that the CLIO Awards or One Show Interactive Award are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field beyond the awarding entities, declining to give weight to self-serving promotional letters or to Wikipedia.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-14_02_B2203; source_row=14632 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO noted petitioner had originally claimed these articles under the published-material criterion (iii), not (vi). On de novo review, AAO held the articles were not 'scholarly' (not peer-reviewed, no references) and were published in only one publication, failing the plural requirement of the regulation.
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 +
AAO noted petitioner had originally claimed these articles under the published-material criterion (iii), not (vi). On de novo review, AAO held the articles were not 'scholarly' (not peer-reviewed, no references) and were published in only one publication, failing the plural requirement of the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-06-14_02_B2203; source_row=14635 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c