aviation or aircraft maintenance
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“the Petitioner did not establish that, or explain how, this degree relates to his area of claimed exceptional ability in aviation or aircraft maintenance.”
p. 3
“the record does not include information about the Petitioner's specific contributions to the aviation industry and that the letters submitted were not supported by independent, documentary evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
p. 6
“the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has commanded a higher salary relative to others working in the field.”
p. 5
“the evidence provided does not establish that PAMA qualifies as a professional association as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E).”
p. 6
What this decision can’t tell you
This decision comes from a case that was denied and then appealed. Every case here is in that position — it cannot be used to estimate an overall approval rate, and it cannot predict the outcome of any individual case, including yours. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed aviation or aircraft maintenance. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- What in my own case most resembles the specific facts USCIS focused on in this decision?
- Would additional expert-opinion evidence have changed the outcome here, based on what USCIS said was missing?