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 maintenance technician, sought to continue working in aircraft mechanics/maintenance in the United States under an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: aircraft maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability, satisfying only two of six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); the motion to reconsider re-argued the same points regarding experience, professional association membership, and significant contributions without showing legal or factual error.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“we did not consider this experience to be in the "occupation" of aircraft mechanic as required by the plain language of the regulation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown that we erred in our determination that he did not satisfy the regulatory criterion”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown how the evidence establishes his significant contributions to the field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions in his current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions.”
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
This decision concerns only the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification (whether the Petitioner met the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); the AAO never reached the NIW Dhanasar prongs, as the motion to reconsider was dismissed solely for failing to show legal or factual error in the prior decision on exceptional ability. This is the third or fourth AAO decision in this matter, reflecting a pattern of repeated unsuccessful motions rearguing the same points.
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)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of O-S-G-
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