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 experienced pilot, sought to continue working as an airline pilot in the U.S., filling a shortage position, serving as a flight instructor training new pilots, and improving flight efficiency.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish qualification as an advanced degree professional (unresolved inconsistencies in academic records, degree earned after filing) and did not establish exceptional ability (met only 3 of 6 evidentiary criteria but final merits determination found no degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in aviation).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not include any explanation for these anomalies in the chronology of the Petitioner's education.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the additional letters submitted in response to the NOID did not list the dates of the Petitioner's experience, did not detail his job duties”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“letters from colleagues who offer general praise about his abilities but do not support his assertions”
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 eligibility failure dispositive and declined to reach the Dhanasar prongs, but included a footnote stating that even if it had addressed them, it would still have dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no new evidence and merely referenced prior filings, which the Director had already found deficient on national importance, well-positioned, and balance-of-benefit grounds.
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(g)(1)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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