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 23981–23990
NIWNIW · Well positionedEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the petitioner's work is not entirely local and its national reach is not so minimal as to be negligible, as it links a national pool of investors with a national pool of investment candidates.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner's work is not entirely local and its national reach is not so minimal as to be negligible, as it links a national pool of investors with a national pool of investment candidates.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-14_05_B5203; source_row=13497 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
No W-2 or similar documentation established an actual salary. The job offer letter reflected a future offer, not a salary already commanded. The witness letters made no reference to the petitioner's salary or compensation, and no comparative salary data was provided.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
No W-2 or similar documentation established an actual salary. The job offer letter reflected a future offer, not a salary already commanded. The witness letters made no reference to the petitioner's salary or compensation, and no comparative salary data was provided.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13485 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The only document in the record was an audit report that is not a scholarly article and was not shown to have appeared in a professional or major trade publication. The regulation also requires 'scholarly articles' in the plural.
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 only document in the record was an audit report that is not a scholarly article and was not shown to have appeared in a professional or major trade publication. The regulation also requires 'scholarly articles' in the plural.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13483 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
Membership in ICAN is based on serving a period as a student and passing an examination, which does not require outstanding achievements. No evidence showed the admitting council comprised recognized national or international experts. Furthermore, the regulation requires membership in associations (plural) and the petitioner only provided one.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Membership in ICAN is based on serving a period as a student and passing an examination, which does not require outstanding achievements. No evidence showed the admitting council comprised recognized national or international experts. Furthermore, the regulation requires membership in associations (plural) and the petitioner only provided one.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13480 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
In the aggregate, the petitioner's evidence—a company award, one professional association membership requiring only examination passage, ordinary auditing work, uncorroborated and partially plagiarized witness letters, and a single report with no demonstrated field impact—does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the accounting field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
In the aggregate, the petitioner's evidence—a company award, one professional association membership requiring only examination passage, ordinary auditing work, uncorroborated and partially plagiarized witness letters, and a single report with no demonstrated field impact—does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the accounting field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13486 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner provided only a single company award with no evidence of national or international recognition beyond her employer. The regulation's plural language ('prizes' and 'awards') also requires more than one award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner provided only a single company award with no evidence of national or international recognition beyond her employer. The regulation's plural language ('prizes' and 'awards') also requires more than one award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13479 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The witness letters lacked specificity, were not corroborated by primary evidence, and several contained passages copied verbatim from internet sources, undermining their credibility. Mastering the Sarbanes-Oxley Act reflects normal job expectations for a competent accountant, not original contributions of major significance to the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The witness letters lacked specificity, were not corroborated by primary evidence, and several contained passages copied verbatim from internet sources, undermining their credibility. Mastering the Sarbanes-Oxley Act reflects normal job expectations for a competent accountant, not original contributions of major significance to the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_03_B2203; source_row=13482 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Overall magnitude of business activities (Sonegawa factors)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO considered Sonegawa factors sua sponte but found the petitioner showed no pattern of significant growth, no uncharacteristic expenditure explaining the losses, no outstanding business reputation, and no milestone achievements. The petitioner's many other I-140 filings further undermined the realism of the job offer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO considered Sonegawa factors sua sponte but found the petitioner showed no pattern of significant growth, no uncharacteristic expenditure explaining the losses, no outstanding business reputation, and no milestone achievements. The petitioner's many other I-140 filings further undermined the realism of the job offer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_02_B5203; source_row=13478 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's net income was negative in 2003, 2005, and 2006, and positive only in 2004. Because the petitioner filed multiple simultaneous I-140 and I-129 petitions, USCIS also examined net current assets, which were negative in all relevant years.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's net income was negative in 2003, 2005, and 2006, and positive only in 2004. Because the petitioner filed multiple simultaneous I-140 and I-129 petitions, USCIS also examined net current assets, which were negative in all relevant years. Reviewed financial statements were rejected because the regulation requires audited statements, and the accrual-method argument was rejected as an improper hybrid accounting approach.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-12-13_02_B5203; source_row=13477 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c