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.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions (k)(3)(ii)(F)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held the resubmitted letters mainly described contributions to specific employers and projects, not significant contributions to the industry or field, and did not constitute new facts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held the resubmitted letters mainly described contributions to specific employers and projects, not significant contributions to the industry or field, and did not constitute new facts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-27_02_B5203; source_row=36079 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO held the supplemental statement did not show the Petitioner's actual salary or that the IT salary report provided a sufficient basis for comparison to his occupation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held the supplemental statement did not show the Petitioner's actual salary or that the IT salary report provided a sufficient basis for comparison to his occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-27_02_B5203; source_row=36077 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other54 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold criteria count, but noted in dicta the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold criteria count, but noted in dicta the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-27_01_B2203; source_row=36072 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the Petitioner's role as an acceptance review expert for three national railway projects was sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the Petitioner's role as an acceptance review expert for three national railway projects was sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-27_01_B2203; source_row=36068 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agrees substantial merit is shown but the evidence — articles not specific to tax/accounting (some dated or based on Belgian enterprises), an undated report, a general expert opinion — does not establish prospective national or global implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO agrees substantial merit is shown but the evidence — articles not specific to tax/accounting (some dated or based on Belgian enterprises), an undated report, a general expert opinion — does not establish prospective national or global implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-26_02_B5203; source_row=36064 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the letter from one employer did not indicate the work was full-time, and the ETA 750 Part B self-attestation cannot substitute for the regulatory requirement of letters from current or former employers showing full-time experience. The Petitioner's ETA 750 Part B was already in the record at the time of filing, not new evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the letter from one employer did not indicate the work was full-time, and the ETA 750 Part B self-attestation cannot substitute for the regulatory requirement of letters from current or former employers showing full-time experience. The Petitioner's ETA 750 Part B was already in the record at the time of filing, not new evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-26_01_B5203; source_row=36058 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c