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 petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for exceptional ability. Specifically, the AAO found that the Petitioner did not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), which requires an official academic record related to the area of exceptional ability. Despite a credential evaluation, the Petitioner lacked the required degree, and unsubstantiated assertions about military training equivalency were not considered evidence. As a result, the Petitioner did not satisfy three of the six criteria required for a final merits determination of exceptional ability.

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

The petitioner proposes to work as a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry, focusing on improving operations, productivity, and profitability through process management, frame/stamping projects, painting/final assembly, product development, and quality control.