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 manufacturing technician, sought to continue work in manufacturing/production-related technical roles in the United States, claiming exceptional ability in this field.
Field: manufacturing / mechanical engineering technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not dispute failure as an advanced degree professional and failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), lacking three of six required criteria at time of filing; key evidence (license, membership) postdated filing and an employment letter lacked duty descriptions.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“it lacks any explanation of the duties the Petitioner performed in that position”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the date of the license was after the instant petition was filed”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“it does not indicate the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the manufacturing industry as a whole”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits a brief referencing the same arguments and evidence previously submitted”
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 found the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility dispositive and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, though it noted in dicta that it 'reviewed the evidence in its totality and agree[d] with the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish' NIW eligibility.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
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