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 develop predictive maintenance technologies, implement enhanced safety protocols for critical avionics systems, and establish comprehensive training programs for aviation maintenance personnel, including through ownership and management of a general aviation repair facility in Georgia.
Field: aircraft maintenance / aviation maintenance technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
SCOPS found the Petitioner met three of six evidentiary criteria but concluded he did not possess a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in aviation maintenance. AAO agreed on final merits determination: experience, certifications, pay, and reference letters showed qualification to perform duties but not expertise significantly above the ordinary level in the field.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan sheds no light on how this company would implement the elements of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stated above.”
“its detachment from the initial statements describing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor represent an impermissible material change in the nature of the proposed endeavor.”
“the plan lacks sufficient detail to support these projections, and the record does not include supporting evidence to corroborate the claims made regarding the market conditions”
“the record does not include sufficient evidence that the potential employment of these workers would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit”
“the business plan lacks any mention of how these aspects of the proposed endeavor would potentially be achieved, nor is this information found elsewhere in the record.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“this evidence showed his qualification to perform the duties of his proposed endeavor, not that he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not substantiated his claims that his level of pay, certifications and license, and recognition from his employer evidence a level of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they are not supported by, and carry less weight than, contemporaneous documentation which might document and show recognition of these achievements.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not indicate that these improvements went beyond the implementation of industry-wide practices and procedures, including those mandated by civil aviation authorities.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“there is no support in the record for his assertion that it reflects recognition beyond his service longevity with his employer.”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the plan lacks sufficient detail to support these projections, and the record does not include supporting evidence to corroborate the claims made regarding the market conditions”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these documents briefly mention aviation safety (but not maintenance), their focus is on hiring practices for federal employees, which bears no relation to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO dismissed the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability claim and then proceeded to analyze Prong 1 only 'briefly,' finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance due to inconsistencies between the initial filing, the RFE response, and the business plan — treating the business plan as a material change under Matter of Izummi. The AAO also noted the business plan inconsistently described the company as both prospective and already operational with 12 employees, without documentation of legal establishment. The Petitioner's argument that meeting three criteria shifts the burden to USCIS was expressly rejected. The Petitioner's STEM and Critical and Emerging Technology arguments were rejected for lack of evidentiary support. Prongs 2 and 3 were expressly reserved under Bagamasbad.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
He failed EB-2 exceptional ability, not shown to be significantly above ordinary; the business plan materially changed the filed endeavor; and impact was limited to company workers and clients.
Switching your endeavor between filing and appeal is an impermissible material change; meeting three exceptional-ability criteria still requires a final-merits showing.
vague
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · critical_emerging_tech
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