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 23651–23660
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO concurred with the director's finding that the salary of $711,359.54 in 2009 meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO concurred with the director's finding that the salary of $711,359.54 in 2009 meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-23_02_B2203; source_row=13880 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
FinancePhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The beneficiary's awards were limited to student honors not indicative of sustained professional acclaim. His published material, judging experience, contributions, and scholarly articles did not rise to the level of national or international acclaim. His roles were not demonstrably leading or critical, and his compensation was not shown to be significantly high in the hedge fund industry.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary's awards were limited to student honors not indicative of sustained professional acclaim. His published material, judging experience, contributions, and scholarly articles did not rise to the level of national or international acclaim. His roles were not demonstrably leading or critical, and his compensation was not shown to be significantly high in the hedge fund industry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-23_01_B2203; source_row=13868 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's 2007 net income (-$2,874) and net current assets (-$48,626) were both negative and insufficient. Unaudited financial statements are not credible evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2); bank statements are not enumerated evidence; officer compensation reallocation was speculative and unsupported; future projections are impermissible under Matter of Great Wall.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's 2007 net income (-$2,874) and net current assets (-$48,626) were both negative and insufficient. Unaudited financial statements are not credible evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2); bank statements are not enumerated evidence; officer compensation reallocation was speculative and unsupported; future projections are impermissible under Matter of Great Wall. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis also failed because the petitioner lacked evidence of reputation, historical growth, or uncharacteristic expenditures.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-22_06_B5203; source_row=13859 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences1,413 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker with same minimum qualifications
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the citation rate moderate at best, the Faculty of 1000 selection less distinctive than claimed (only one reviewer selected the petitioner's article versus eight for a comparable article), and the biosensor grading article misrepresented by counsel—it commented only on proper use of optical biosensor technology, not on the petitioner's impact in her own field.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the citation rate moderate at best, the Faculty of 1000 selection less distinctive than claimed (only one reviewer selected the petitioner's article versus eight for a comparable article), and the biosensor grading article misrepresented by counsel—it commented only on proper use of optical biosensor technology, not on the petitioner's impact in her own field. The witness letters were anecdotal and lacked specific documentary corroboration of advances arising from the petitioner's work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-22_04_B5203; source_row=13858 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found net income sufficient in 2006 to pay the wage differential and additional beneficiaries; for 2005, although net income was insufficient to cover all beneficiaries, the totality of the circumstances under Sonegawa (longevity since 1993, $9M gross sales, $411,731 officer compensation, $649,753 payroll, $1.5M subcontractor expenses) established ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found net income sufficient in 2006 to pay the wage differential and additional beneficiaries; for 2005, although net income was insufficient to cover all beneficiaries, the totality of the circumstances under Sonegawa (longevity since 1993, $9M gross sales, $411,731 officer compensation, $649,753 payroll, $1.5M subcontractor expenses) established ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-22_07_B5203; source_row=13860 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the letters offered only general praise without explaining how the petitioner's work was of major significance to the field, and that performances by themselves do not constitute contributions of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the letters offered only general praise without explaining how the petitioner's work was of major significance to the field, and that performances by themselves do not constitute contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-21_01_B2203; source_row=13842 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found teaching does not equate to formal judging, and a mere invitation to judge without documentary evidence of actual participation as a judge is insufficient.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found teaching does not equate to formal judging, and a mere invitation to judge without documentary evidence of actual participation as a judge is insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-21_01_B2203; source_row=13841 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found no independent evidence that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence beyond the awarding entities, that scholarships are not qualifying prizes/awards, and that the gold medal claim lacked primary evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found no independent evidence that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence beyond the awarding entities, that scholarships are not qualifying prizes/awards, and that the gold medal claim lacked primary evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-02-21_01_B2203; source_row=13838 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c