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 specialist with experience in Colombia, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver to continue work in aircraft maintenance in the United States.
Field: aviation/aircraft maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability; the Director found only the license/certification criterion satisfied, and AAO agreed the academic degree, salary, membership, and recognition criteria were not met.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that, or explain how, this degree relates to his area of claimed exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this general and unsupported assertion does not overcome the Director's determination”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence provided does not establish that PAMA qualifies as a professional association as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters submitted were not supported by independent, documentary evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
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 found the threshold exceptional-ability classification unmet and, because this was dispositive, expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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