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.
Ability to pay demonstrated by net income on federal tax returns
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's Forms 1120-F showed zero taxable income for each year 2007–2010, and no current assets or liabilities were listed on Schedule L, making it impossible to establish ability to pay from net income or net current assets.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's Forms 1120-F showed zero taxable income for each year 2007–2010, and no current assets or liabilities were listed on Schedule L, making it impossible to establish ability to pay from net income or net current assets.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13489 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that the petitioner's own Forms 1120-F stated it was not conducting business in the United States and had no permanent establishment there, precluding it from qualifying as a U.S. employer under the applicable regulations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the petitioner's own Forms 1120-F stated it was not conducting business in the United States and had no permanent establishment there, precluding it from qualifying as a U.S. employer under the applicable regulations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13487 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay demonstrated by actual compensation paid to beneficiary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The beneficiary's W-2 wages ranged from $24,400 to $36,600 annually, far below the $101,000 proffered wage. The claimed Korean compensation lacked sufficient documentation, and even if accepted would leave total compensation below the proffered wage.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary's W-2 wages ranged from $24,400 to $36,600 annually, far below the $101,000 proffered wage. The claimed Korean compensation lacked sufficient documentation, and even if accepted would leave total compensation below the proffered wage.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13488 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The bank records were incomplete (only one of two accounts documented, covering only 18 months), monthly closing balances in some months were insufficient to cover the wage shortfall, and the bank assets were not reflected on any U.S. tax returns, further undermining their reliability as evidence of sustained 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 bank records were incomplete (only one of two accounts documented, covering only 18 months), monthly closing balances in some months were insufficient to cover the wage shortfall, and the bank assets were not reflected on any U.S. tax returns, further undermining their reliability as evidence of sustained ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13491 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay demonstrated by totality of circumstances (Sonegawa)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Even considering all circumstances, the petitioner's U.S. operation generated no revenue, had a thinly capitalized branch, and provided no updated business information after 2007, giving no basis to find ability to pay under a totality-of-circumstances analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Even considering all circumstances, the petitioner's U.S. operation generated no revenue, had a thinly capitalized branch, and provided no updated business information after 2007, giving no basis to find ability to pay under a totality-of-circumstances analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13492 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay demonstrated by audited financial statements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The financial statements were internally audited and not 'audited financial statements' within the meaning of the regulation; the cover audit reports were submitted belatedly, casting doubt on their veracity; and even if properly audited, the Korean parent's financials do not represent the U.S. employer's ability to pay wages in the United States.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The financial statements were internally audited and not 'audited financial statements' within the meaning of the regulation; the cover audit reports were submitted belatedly, casting doubt on their veracity; and even if properly audited, the Korean parent's financials do not represent the U.S. employer's ability to pay wages in the United States.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_01_B5203; source_row=13490 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded the petitioner had no documented past track record as either a CEO or patent agent/attorney at the time of filing, his company was formed after filing, his patent had not issued, and his subjective belief and language/Ph.D. credentials did not show he would serve the national interest substantially more than others in the 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 concluded the petitioner had no documented past track record as either a CEO or patent agent/attorney at the time of filing, his company was formed after filing, his patent had not issued, and his subjective belief and language/Ph.D. credentials did not show he would serve the national interest substantially more than others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_04_B5203; source_row=13495 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c