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, a flight simulator maintenance engineer, proposed to continue working in flight simulator maintenance while also teaching and training new technicians and engineers at independent training centers, aviation maintenance schools, and colleges.
Field: flight simulator engineering / aviation maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, noting the record showed only an associate's degree and lacked evidence combining education and experience to equate to a bachelor's degree; remanded for the Director to also consider the alternative exceptional-ability claim that was never evaluated.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record lacks corroborating evidence to that claim”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Director did not evaluate the evidence that pertained to the Beneficiary's claimed exceptional ability”
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
AAO remanded rather than reaching the Dhanasar prongs because the Director's denial failed to analyze the petitioner's stated endeavor (teaching/training plus maintenance work) under the framework at all, and separately reversed the Director's finding that the petitioner met the advanced-degree threshold while noting the Director never evaluated the alternative exceptional-ability claim.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erred at both steps: wrongly found advanced-degree eligibility despite only an associate's degree, and wrongly held the endeavor was not specific enough, precluding any Dhanasar analysis; AAO remanded for a proper sequential analysis.
Ensure the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree vs. exceptional ability) is squarely established before framing endeavor and national-importance arguments, and state the endeavor with enough specificity to survive threshold review.
moderate
field_advancement · economic_growth_generic
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