dismissedDEC292025_01B52032025-12-29 · appeal

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 aerospace quality engineer, proposed to continue work inspecting, certifying, and improving quality-assurance protocols for avionics components at a U.S. manufacturer, while also describing contingent interests in flight testing, mentoring, and other aerospace roles.

Field: aerospace quality engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; exceptional ability claim not reached.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“This description of the proposed endeavor therefore lacks the required specificity.”

“The brief did not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would result in adoption of his methodologies beyond his own employer”

“The Petitioner's claims of national importance rest largely on the overall importance of the aviation industry, without showing the broader implications of his specific proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner also referred to other benefits but did not explain how his work would result in those benefits.”

“Regarding possible mentoring work, the Petitioner claims "a national shortage" but does not show that his mentoring activity would significantly address that shortage.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“the auditor's letter does not identify or establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“indicates, without elaboration, that the Petitioner "[c]reated process procedures" and "[i]mproved manufacturing process[es]."”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that these materials show the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmitted the same statement quoted and described above.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The Petitioner's initial endeavor statement branched into several unrelated contingent career paths, including a claim of holding credentials to be an astronaut, which the AAO cited as evidence of impermissible vagueness. The AAO also closely fact-checked the Petitioner's citations to government reports (e.g., the FAA's National Aviation Safety Plan), finding the cited terms either absent or unrelated to the claimed support.

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. 103.5

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer