NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL032023_02B52032023-07-03 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 mechanic trained and licensed in Brazil, sought to continue working as an aircraft mechanic for U.S. employers, arguing his work would support the aviation industry and address a workforce shortage.

Field: aircraft mechanics / aviation maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability; he satisfied only two of six regulatory criteria (education and license), failing the ten-years-experience, membership, and recognition criteria due to unresolved employment inconsistencies and conclusory letters.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not provide adequate support for the Petitioner's claim that, by accepting a position as an aircraft mechanic, he 'will broadly impact the field'”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
“neither the Petitioner nor the individuals who provided opinion letters in support of the petition sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work as an air mechanic would meaningfully impact this demand or alleviate any shortage of workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the job duties performed while he was as a transportation manager for N- or as an operational technician for S- ... are akin to those typically performed in the aircraft mechanic occupation”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “this documentation does not establish his eligibility for this criterion at the time of filing”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “without more detailed explanation about the Petitioner's specific contributions to the occupation, supported by documentary evidence, the letters do not sufficiently support”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
  • other · discounted
    “we conclude the opinion letters are of little probative value to the matter at hand”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • 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

AAO faulted the Director for not adequately explaining the initial denial per 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1), but still affirmed dismissal on de novo review. Threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability analysis included a detailed inconsistency finding (Petitioner claimed two simultaneous full-time jobs in different fields, and worked as an aircraft mechanic before completing his mechanic training). AAO also noted the Petitioner appeared to conflate EB-1 extraordinary ability standards with EB-2 exceptional ability standards.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer