Automotive Technician

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the exceptional ability criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), which requires an official academic record of a degree, diploma, or certificate. The Petitioner's arguments regarding military training equivalency and an independent evaluator's assessment of a bachelor's degree equivalency were rejected as not satisfying this specific regulatory requirement. The AAO dismissed the motions, stating they merely reargued previously considered issues without new, probative facts or demonstrating an incorrect application of law.

The petitioner seeks to work as an automotive technician in the United States. The record does not provide specific details on a unique research area or methodology beyond general employment in the automotive field.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner only satisfied two of the six initial evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability, specifically failing to demonstrate ten years of full-time experience in the occupation (as prior experience as a transportation manager and operation technician was not considered 'in the occupation'), membership in professional associations (as defined by regulation, not online dictionaries), and significant contributions to the industry. The arguments presented were re-evaluations of previously considered claims without new evidence or legal basis.

The Petitioner seeks to work as a manufacturing technician, specifically aligning his work with mechanical engineering technology and production operations.