Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director failed to adequately analyze the Petitioner's exceptional ability claim and did not sufficiently explain the national interest waiver analysis under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner, a Colombian aircraft mechanic, filed an I-140 for an EB-2 National Interest Waiver. The Texas Service Center Director erroneously found him eligible as an advanced degree professional — a finding the AAO reversed, noting that his Colombian occupational certificate and technician degree do not constitute a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, and that experience cannot substitute for a degree under the regulations. The Director also failed to evaluate the Petitioner's actual claimed basis — exceptional ability — and did not sufficiently analyze all three Dhanasar prongs, including failing to address submitted expert opinions and evidence of national importance. The AAO remanded the case for a proper evaluation of exceptional ability eligibility and a complete Dhanasar analysis, while expressing no opinion on the ultimate outcome.
What worked: The AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as an aircraft mechanic carries substantial merit, and noted the Director failed to properly weigh the expert opinions, industry articles, and employer letters that were submitted in support of national importance and the Petitioner's positioning.
What failed: The Petitioner's academic credentials — a Colombian occupational certificate and technician degree combined with work experience — were insufficient to establish equivalency to a U.S. bachelor's degree required for advanced degree professional classification. The Director's failure to analyze the exceptional ability claim and properly apply Dhanasar meant no final determinations were reached on the merits.
Takeaway: Petitioners in trades or technical occupations should carefully evaluate whether their occupation and credentials can meet the EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability threshold before filing; when claiming exceptional ability, submit comprehensive evidence addressing all six regulatory criteria and ensure supporting documents are explicitly analyzed in the record.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as an aircraft mechanic carries substantial merit, and noted the Director failed to properly weigh the expert opinions, industry articles, and employer letters that were submitted in support of national importance and the Petitioner's positioning.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner's academic credentials — a Colombian occupational certificate and technician degree combined with work experience — were insufficient to establish equivalency to a U.S
- bachelor's degree required for advanced degree professional classification
- The Director's failure to analyze the exceptional ability claim and properly apply Dhanasar meant no final determinations were reached on the merits.
Evidence establishing substantial merit of the proposed endeavor as an aircraft mechanic for a U.S. employer
Two professional plans and letters from current and former employers relating to work experience
Academic credential evaluation opining that petitioner's Colombian occupational certificate, technician degree, and 12 years of experience equate to a U.S. Bachelor of Science in Aviation Maintenance Technology — rejected because regulations require a single foreign equivalent bachelor's degree, not a combination of lesser credentials and experience
Petitioner's Colombian occupational certificate and technician degree as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree for advanced degree professional classification
Director found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree without providing any explanation or legal basis for that finding.
Director failed to evaluate the Petitioner's claim of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) after erroneously concluding advanced degree eligibility.
Director's national importance analysis under Dhanasar prong one did not meaningfully address submitted evidence, including expert opinions, articles, and updated professional plan.
Director did not articulate the basis for finding the Petitioner well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar prong two.
Director did not sufficiently discuss or weigh the evidence submitted regarding the third Dhanasar prong or meaningfully address the Petitioner's arguments about aircraft mechanic shortages.
Completed
I-140 filed
Aircraft mechanic and aviation maintenance technician
Completed
Director, Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-08-15
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director failed to adequately analyze the Petitioner's exceptional ability claim and did not sufficiently explain the national interest waiver analysis under the Dhanasar framework.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee