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 Colombian-trained aviation mechanic with military experience, sought to work as an aviation mechanic in the United States for a specific employer.
Field: aviation mechanics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner met at least three of six exceptional ability criteria but failed the final merits determination; did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that their proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond their employer to impact the aviation mechanic field, the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's employment at will result in a broad impact on the aviation industry or the aviation mechanic field”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to their work, the record does not show that benefits to their employer or regional economy resulting from the Petitioner's service as an aviation mechanic would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how their record compares with aviation mechanics with the same degree, experiences, and certifications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the bases upon which those superlatives were awarded”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how... membership in professional associations sets them apart from other aviation mechanics”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters confirm the Petitioner's employment and praise their skills and abilities, they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO addressed both the threshold exceptional-ability classification and, alternatively, the NIW national importance prong, framing each as an independent alternate basis for dismissal; second and third Dhanasar prongs expressly reserved.
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)(iii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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