NIW Bearings
remandedAUG152023_07B52032023-08-15 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic trained in Colombia, proposed to continue working as an aircraft mechanic for a U.S. employer.

Field: aircraft mechanics / aviation maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found the Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree because aircraft mechanic does not require a U.S. bachelor's degree for entry and his combined certificate/degree/experience did not equate to a single foreign bachelor's degree; remanded for the Director to instead evaluate his exceptional-ability claim, which the Director had not yet addressed.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“However, the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents.”
“the Director's decision did not sufficiently explain the basis for this determination”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“However, the Director's decision did not provide a basis for this dete1mination.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“the Director did not sufficiently discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those considerations or meaningfully address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “he does not qualify as an advanced degree professional”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the proposed rule does not provide a procedure to allow experience alone to substitute for either a baccalaureate degree or an advanced degree”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · ignored
    “the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
    “the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · ignored
    “the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents”
    AAO decision text

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Rather than affirming failure on any Dhanasar prong, the AAO remanded because the Director's decision was conclusory and failed to explain its reasoning or engage with evidence submitted (including RFE response materials), across the threshold classification and all three prongs; the AAO also sua sponte withdrew the Director's favorable advanced-degree finding, finding against the Petitioner on that threshold issue while remanding for consideration of the alternative exceptional-ability claim.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Kazarian v. USCIS
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's decision denied the petition without adequately explaining reasons, ignoring submitted RFE response evidence and additional documentation (expert opinions, articles) on national importance, positioning, and balancing prongs; AAO remanded for proper analysis.

Transferable lesson

Adjudicators must engage with all submitted evidence and articulate specific reasons for each Dhanasar prong; failure to do so warrants remand regardless of ultimate merits.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer