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 decision does not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as the appeal was summarily dismissed without substantive review.
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
The appeal was summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v) because the Petitioner's appeal statement was only two sentences, general and vague, and did not identify a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's denial; the Petitioner also failed to submit the promised brief or additional evidence within 30 days. No substantive NIW prong analysis, threshold EB-2 analysis, or evidence review occurred.
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp