dismissedMAY282024_06B52032024-05-28 · appeal · 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 aircraft mechanic, proposed to implement Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) lean-production methodology to reduce the time needed for aircraft maintenance checks, disseminating his methods via publications, presentations, and consultancies to airlines and MROs.

Field: aviation maintenance (aircraft mechanic/industrial engineering) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions; his occupation (aircraft mechanic/technician) is not shown to require a bachelor's degree, and his own work history predates his degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the petition rests largely on the general assertion that, because the aviation industry is important, efforts to improve that industry have national importance”

“without further details about the nature and extent of the expected improvements, supported by reliable evidence, such general assertions do not suffice to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof”

“The Petitioner did not explain how his proposed endeavor would improve upon the solutions proposed in the articles.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“This wording suggests that he had not yet done so when he filed the petition.”

“he did not explain the employment context in which he would do so”

“he did not specify whether he himself would be the consultant; show that he had any prior consulting experience”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he provided minimal details about the nature of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner did not explain how his proposed endeavor would improve upon the solutions proposed in the articles.”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“his own employment history demonstrates that he did not need a bachelor's degree to work as an aircraft mechanic”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“letters from his past and present employers have consistently referred to him as a "mechanic" or "technician"”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the offer's relation to the proposed endeavor is not well defined”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Although the Director found the Petitioner met the advanced-degree/professional threshold and was well positioned under prong 2, the AAO on its own initiative reached and rejected both findings as 'additional deficiencies' beyond the Director's decision, even though the national importance failure alone was dispositive.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer