dismissedOCT162023_02B52032023-10-16 · appeal · Nebraska 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 proposed to continue working as an aircraft mechanic, maintaining aircraft airworthiness, safety, and regulatory compliance.
Field: aircraft mechanics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner refers on appeal only generally to the "profuse evidence" that demonstrates the Petitioner's "significant past achievements," rather than to any specific evidence in the record”
“most of these objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of an aircraft mechanic”
“many of the Petitioner's claims regarding national importance, such as the importance of the aviation industry to the economy, the size and projected growth of the industry, and the potential shortage of experienced aviation professionals, relate to the aviation industry overall”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor to work as an aircraft mechanic has the significant potential to extend beyond his employer to impact the aviation field or the U.S. economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner's past achievements resulted in a broad impact on the aviation industry or the aircraft mechanic field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's general, conclusory statements to the contrary are insufficient to meet his burden of proof”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
AAO expressly declined to reach the threshold EB-2 classification question, reserving it under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- doctrine since prong 1 was dispositive; also expressly distinguished occupation-general duties from a specific proposed endeavor, citing Dhanasar's own occupation (engineer) versus his specific endeavor (propulsion research/teaching) as a contrast.
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
- 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