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 in the aviation industry, sought to continue working in that field in the United States as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: aircraft maintenance / aviation mechanics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six criteria for exceptional ability; specifically the recognition-for-achievements criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)) and the professional-association-membership criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)) were not met, and the record does not show he qualifies as a member of a profession.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the personal recognitions described and documented do not demonstrate that he has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the broader aviation mechanics industry or field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he did not demonstrate that PAMA qualifies as a professional association consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established eligibility”
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
This decision does not reach the national interest waiver prongs at all; it is entirely about whether the Petitioner meets the threshold exceptional-ability criteria (professional association membership and recognition for achievements) on a third combined motion to reopen/reconsider. The AAO rejects the Petitioner's argument that it applied a 'stricter-than-required standard' and reiterates prior findings regarding PAMA membership and letters of recommendation.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (recognition letters showed employer-specific praise, not field-wide significance; PAMA membership didn't meet 'professional association' definition), so NIW eligibility was never assessed.
Secure recognition letters addressing contributions to the broader field/industry, not employer-specific praise, and cite actual legal/policy error—not mere disagreement—on reconsideration.
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