dismissedMAR242023_01B52032023-03-24 · motion_reopen · 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 experienced pilot, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, though the specific proposed endeavor in the U.S. was not substantively described since the case turned on threshold eligibility.

Field: aviation / piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO previously found Petitioner met only three of six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record, license/certification, membership) and waived arguments on the experience-letters and salary criteria by not raising them on appeal. On the recognition/contributions criterion (F), AAO found Petitioner 'did not explain the nature of his specific contributions to the field of aviation and he offered no supporting evidence on this point.' On motion, newly submitted and resubmitted letters/documents were found not to constitute new facts or were duplicative of previously considered evidence, so the motion to reopen failed to disturb the exceptional-ability finding.

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
certification membership · credited
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner did not previously address this criterion on appeal and thereby waived any future claim”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“their content is remarkably similar to that in the originally submitted letters ... the letters do not establish cause for reopening”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“these documents were part of the record at the time of the appeal and had been previously considered”
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 is a motion to reopen following a prior AAO appeal dismissal that rested entirely on threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility; the AAO expressly reserved the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs without deciding them, though a footnote states that even if EB-2 eligibility were established, the record would not show the Petitioner overcame the denial's national-importance finding. The AAO applied a strict waiver doctrine (Matter of R-A-M-) to bar reconsideration of criteria not argued on the prior appeal, and rejected resubmitted/duplicative letters and documents as not constituting 'new facts' under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2). A partial (non-full) English translation of a license document was also flagged as noncompliant under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3).

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)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of Coelho
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of R-A-M-
Visinscaia v. Beers

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to establish exceptional-ability EB-2 classification (only 3 of 6 criteria met, no explanation of specific contributions), and the motion resubmitted previously considered evidence rather than new facts, so it did not meet the motion-to-reopen standard.

Transferable lesson

Address every classification criterion on appeal to avoid waiver, explain concrete contributions with new, non-duplicative evidence, and separately brief national importance/magnitude even if classification is contested.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer