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 automotive technician, sought to continue working in the automotive technology field in the United States under an EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: automotive technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F); specifically, the claimed academic record did not relate to automotive technology and the recommendation letters did not show significant recognized contributions to the field.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not appear to contain a qualifying degree and the underlying academic record does not fall within the field of automotive technology”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation and opinion letters in the record do not indicate how the Petitioner has been recognized for his achievements”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates information already in the record, and he requests us to contradict our prior decision about the same evidence”
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 resolves entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); the AAO never reached the NIW Dhanasar prongs because the Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability status itself. The motion was dismissed for lack of new facts and lack of any specified legal/policy error.
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)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to present new facts or show legal/policy error; merely repeated prior arguments that record lacked qualifying degree and evidence of 'significant' contributions.
On motion, submit genuinely new, probative evidence or identify a specific legal/policy error—reasserting the same record cannot overturn a prior AAO denial.
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