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 avionics specialist, sought to continue working in aircraft maintenance/avionics in the United States under an EB-2 exceptional-ability classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: avionics/aircraft maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner satisfied only two of six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record and license/certification); failed to establish, via employer letters, at least ten years of full-time progressive experience in the occupation as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), which was dispositive.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“he has not provided reliable evidence that meets his burden of proof as it relates to demonstrating he "has at least ten years of full-time experience"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“that material does not satisfy the regulation's requirement that evidence under this criterion be "in the form of letter(s) from cunent or former employer(s)."”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the certified translations for the documents...are identical to include the illegible and partially visible signature of the translator”
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 dismissed the appeal purely on the threshold exceptional-ability experience criterion, expressly declining to reach any Dhanasar prong analysis (citing Patel v. Garland and Matter of K-S-H-). The decision also flags near-identical duty descriptions across two employer letters authored by different individuals as evidence of possible ghost-drafting, and notes identical/illegible translation certificates as undermining reliability of foreign-language evidence.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to prove 10 years full-time experience via qualifying employer letters (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)); identical duty language and identical translation certificates undermined credibility, defeating underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility, mooting NIW analysis.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification with clear, non-duplicative, properly translated employer letters before any NIW argument; failure at this threshold moots Dhanasar review entirely.
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