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 aviation maintenance technician, sought to continue working in aviation maintenance in the United States, though the AAO never reached the merits of his proposed endeavor because he failed to establish underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility.
Field: aviation maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner met only two of six exceptional-ability criteria; on motion he failed to establish the membership criterion (PAMA is not a qualifying professional association requiring a bachelor's degree) and the recognition/significant-contributions criterion (letters and certifications showed experience/expertise but not significant contributions to the field).
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“The evidence in the record does not establish the occupation, or the membership in an association for that occupation, requires a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not attest to, "significant contributions to the field."”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“this letter was not part of the record when the appellate decision was issued, and we need not consider this letter on motion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters reiterate what can be found in the Petitioner's resume and the recommendation letters we previously reviewed”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“they do not establish significant contributions to the field as is required by this criterion”
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
The AAO never reached the Dhanasar NIW prongs because the Petitioner failed to establish threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility; the decision is primarily a motions ruling (reopen/reconsider) analyzing whether the prior appellate decision misapplied the preponderance standard, with the AAO reaffirming that unnecessary issues (the NIW prongs) need not be addressed once underlying classification fails, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria (10-yr experience, professional membership, significant contributions), so EB-2 classification—and thus any NIW merits review—was never reached.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: membership must meet a bachelor's-degree professional definition, and letters must show field-wide, not employer-specific, significant contributions.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod