dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 7, 2024 In Re: 29865943 
Motions on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft maintenance technician, seeks classification under the employment-based, 
second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer 
requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may excuse a job offer in 
this category - and thus a related requirement for certification from the U.S. Department of Labor 
(DOL) - if a petitioner demonstrates that a waiver of these U.S.-worker protections would be "in the 
national interest." Id. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. On appeal, we affirmed the 
Director's decision that the Petitioner neither demonstrated his qualifications for the EB-2 category 
nor the merits of a national interest waiver. See In Re: 27521249 (AAO July 3, 2023). 
The matter returns to us on the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. He submits 
new evidence and contends that we overlooked materials and imposed a stricter standard of proof than 
required. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we conclude that his motions do not establish his qualifications for the requested EB-2 
category. We will therefore dismiss the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In contrast, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or USCIS 
policy based on the evidence at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, we must 
limit the scope of our review to our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions 
that meet these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring new evidence to have the potential to change 
the case's outcome). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts his EB-2 qualifications as a noncitizen of "exceptional ability." See section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. We concluded that he met two of six initial evidentiary criteria - one less 
than required for a final merits determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii); see generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.(5)(B)(2), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
We found that the Petitioner submitted official academic records showing that he has school 
certificates in aviation mechanics and a license to work as an aircraft maintenance technician. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (C). He contends that he also provided proof that he has: at least 10 
years of foll-time experience as an aircraft maintenance technician; membership in professional 
associations; and recognition for achievements and significant contributions in his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (E), (F). 
A. Membership in Professional Associations 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of membership in professional associations." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). As used in this regulatory section, the term "profession" means "any occupation 
for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Petitioner submitted a membership letter to him from the~------------~ 
. The letter bears an August 2022 date. We therefore found that he did not 
~d_e_m_o_n_s_t_ra_t_e_h-is--;=l====---.1 membership at the time of the petition's filing in August 2020. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to establish eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit request"). 
On motion, the Petitioner states that he gained! I membership in September 2021 and provides a
~-~I letter to him dated that month. The letter demonstrates his I I membership as of 
September 2021. But that date follows the August 2020 petition filing by more than one year. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated his I I membership at the time of the petition's filing. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of his aircraft mechanic licenses from two governmental 
~ies: thel I; and thel I 
L_J We found that, contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), he did not demonstrate the agencies' 
qualifications as "professional associations" requiring bachelor's degrees for membership. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that the agencies have "stringent requirements" for licensing, 
including completion of tests and courses. But he has not demonstrated that the agencies' licensure 
requirements include bachelor's degrees. Thus, contrary to the regulation, the Petitioner has not 
established the agencies as "professional associations." We will therefore affirm our appellate 
findings regarding this evidentiary requirement. 
2 
B. Ten Years of Full-Time Experience in the Field 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit "[e]vidence in the form of letter(s) from current or 
former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the 
occupation for which he or she is being sought." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
We found that the letters from the Petitioner's former employers covered more than 10 years. But we 
concluded that the letters did not show that he worked at least 10 years in the intended occupation of 
aircraft mechanic. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that his former job duties as a transportation manager and operation 
technician relate to tasks typically performed by aircraft mechanics. He states that his experience in 
those roles with vehicles, heavy machines, and communication systems helped him to succeed as an 
aircraft mechanic. 
The regulation requires at least 10 years of foll-time experience "in the occupation" being sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). Thus, the Petitioner's experience in related jobs does not meet the 
criterion. We will therefore affirm our findings regarding this evidentiary requirement. 
C. Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
We found that letters from the Petitioner's colleagues, teachers, and former employers offer "general 
praise" about him. But we concluded that the letters do not constitute recognition for achievements 
or significant contributions to the aviation industry, as they do not detail specific achievements or 
contributions affecting the industry. The Petitioner also submitted two letters from experts in the field, 
including a pilot/certified aviation manager and a U.S. university professor of mathematics and 
computer science who advises on his school's aeronautics program. We found that the expert letters 
do not specify, document, or analyze contributions that the Petitioner made to his field. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that, by disregarding the regulation's plain language, we effectively 
applied a standard of proof stricter than a preponderance of the evidence. He states that the letters 
from colleagues and professionals who worked closely with him "emphasize the significant impact he 
has made in his field." The Petitioner also submits three additional letters from current and former 
co-workers. 
Although the Petitioner claims that he has had a "significant impact" on his field, the letters he 
submitted do not provide examples. His letters of recommendation praise his skills, abilities, and 
work. But they do not specify achievements or significant contributions he has made in the aviation 
industry. For example, a letter from his current employer states that he "contributes fundamentally to 
maintaining a safe flight environment in our operations" and "ensuring high-quality service to our 
customers." These contributions might significantly affect the Petitioner's employer. But the record 
does not demonstrate their effect on the aviation industry. 
3 
The three letters submitted on motion detail achievements and contributions by the Petitioner. But 
they do not explain how these achievements and contributions significantly affected the aviation 
industry. For example, a letter from an aircraft mechanic who previously worked with the Petitioner 
recounts one election day when the Petitioner performed an urgent repair on the brakes of the Brazilian 
president's plane, allowing the president to safely fly home and vote. The letter recognizes the 
Petitioner's skills and abilities. But it does not indicate that these contributions affected the aviation 
field as a whole. 
The other two letters on motion state that, because of the Petitioner's expertise with a particular brand 
of aircraft, he was invited to work on the brand's first aircraft converted to cargo planes. The station 
maintenance manager who invited the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner's "expertise and proficiency 
were vital in ensuring the success of this venture." 
The Petitioner's work on the converted cargo planes might reflect significant contributions to the 
aviation industry. But the letters provide insufficient information about the project or its effect on the 
industry to demonstrate the work's significance to the field. Thus, the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence of his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field. We will therefore affirm our findings on this evidentiary criterion. 
The Petitioner has met less than three of the six initial evidentiary requirements . Thus, he has not 
demonstrated his qualifications for the EB-2 category, and we cannot approve the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Our decision regarding the Petitioner's EB-2 eligibility resolves these motions. We therefore decline 
to reach and hereby reserve his arguments and evidence regarding the requested national interest 
waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant 
did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Neither the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen nor his motion to reconsider demonstrate his eligibility for 
the requested immigrant visa category. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4