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 technician, proposed to lead an innovation project designing and manufacturing an affordable one- or two-seat hybrid aircraft combining combustion and electric engines to reduce flight-hour costs for pilots and aviation schools in the United States.
Field: aircraft maintenance/engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner met 3 of 6 initial exceptional-ability criteria (degree, license/certification, professional membership) but AAO found he did not demonstrate a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field in the final merits determination; this failure was dispositive and the NIW prongs were not reached.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“he did not explain or document how his work experience gave him "unique ability" or significant expertise”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters make broad statements and limit their discussion to his individual employers”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“did not sufficiently explain how being recognized by Brazil as a mid-level industrial technician...demonstrated how he was set apart”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he did not articulate how this set him apart from other aircraft technicians”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he did not explain how this, alone, established him as one who likely had a degree of experience significantly above others”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“bears little relation to the other evidence he submitted to demonstrate that he is an individual of 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
This decision concerns the threshold exceptional-ability EB-2 classification, not the NIW prongs; the AAO expressly reserved the national interest waiver issue because the Petitioner failed at the threshold stage. Notably, the Petitioner shifted his claimed basis for exceptional ability on appeal (hybrid aircraft design/engineering) away from what the underlying record supported (aircraft interior electrical work), which the AAO found inconsistent and unsupported, citing Matter of Ho on resolving inconsistencies.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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