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 commercial airline first officer/pilot, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability in aviation and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: aviation (commercial pilot) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria; only satisfied (A) and (C), and the letters submitted for criterion (F) (recognition for achievements/significant contributions) were found to have minimal probative value.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“achievements or significant contributions to a particular entity are not automatically achievements or significant contributions to a greater industry or field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“On appeal, the Petitioner does not pursue his initial claim that he meets the criterion relating to evidence of at least ten years”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates previous statements made in the initial petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence and does not provide any new evidence”
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 exceptional-ability requirement was not met and expressly reserved/declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs entirely, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary alternative issues. Thus no NIW prong analysis occurred despite Petitioner's appellate arguments on all three prongs.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility: only 2 of 3 required regulatory criteria met, since employer letters showed praise for individual acts but not recognition for significant contributions to the industry/field.
Before reaching NIW prongs, ensure threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability criteria are met with evidence explicitly linking individual achievements to broader industry/field-level recognition, not just employer praise.
vague
person_focused
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