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 maintenance technician, sought to continue working in the aviation maintenance field in the United States as an individual of exceptional ability with a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: aircraft maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria (degree, license/certification, membership) but the Director and AAO found in the final merits determination that he did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. AAO rejected additional certifications (post-dated filing or routine on-the-job training), found peer letters conclusory and employer-specific, found employment history did not establish 10 years of full-time work due to unresolved inconsistencies, and found salary evidence unsupported/uncorroborated.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“This routine, on-the-job training does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has expertise beyond that normally possessed by others in his field.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The record does not include evidence of recognition of any achievements or contributions on a scale beyond that employer.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that he has at least ten years of full-time employment in the occupation for which he is being sought.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Simply going on the record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions is not sufficient in these proceedings.”
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 resolved the appeal entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability determination (final merits determination) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs as unnecessary, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The decision also notes and resolves an internal contradiction in the Director's decision regarding full-time employment findings, deferring to the Director's earlier analysis.
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 Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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