31 decisions
newest first- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2023-03-02Provider of software development and other information technology servicesMAR022023_02B5203Computing, AI & data
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish itself as the "successor in interest" of the employer listed on the accompanying certification from the U.
Evidence submitted too late - RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2020-09-03Montessori schoolSEP032020_05B5203Other / unclear
Since the Petitioner is no longer doing business, it cannot establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage under 8 C.
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-11-27· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedNOV272013_08B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-11-26· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedNOV262013_01B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-11-14· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedNOV142013_06B5203Other / unclear
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-08-30· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedAUG302013_04B5203Other / unclear
If the director determines that the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion, no new decision will be issued.
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-07-26· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedJUL262013_05B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-06-28· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedJUN282013_04B5203Other / unclear
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-06-18· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedJUN182013_01B5203Other / unclear
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-06-10· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedJUN102013_05B5203Other / unclear
The director found that the petitioner did not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts, or that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States.
No interest from users, customers or investors - RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-05-23· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedMAY232013_03B5203Other / unclear
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-04-16· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedAPR162013_02B5203Computing, AI & data
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-04-04· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedAPR042013_01B5203Other / unclear
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-03-25· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedMAR252013_08B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification.
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-03-19· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedMAR192013_03B5203Other / unclear
If the director determines that the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion, no new decision will be issued.
- RejectedEB-2 · Appeal2013-03-07· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedMAR072013_06B5203Computing, AI & data
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider2013-02-25· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedFEB252013_02B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen2013-02-21· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedFEB212013_07B5203Other / unclear
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it had continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary since the.
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider2013-02-12· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedFEB122013_01B5203Other / unclear
In his February 17, 2009 decision, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish · its ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered salary from the priority date onwards.
- RejectedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider2013-02-12· old NYSDOT testOccupation not statedFEB122013_02B5203Other / unclear
In his December 3, 2008 decision, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered salary froin the priority date onwards.