dismissedAPR022024_07B52032024-04-02 · appeal · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a commercial pilot with over eleven years of experience currently working as a Boeing 737 captain/instructor, proposed to continue his career as a pilot in the United States, transporting passengers and cargo domestically and internationally.
Field: aviation/commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner provides no study, business plan, or projections about how his proposed endeavor will impact anyone beyond his specific employer.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the articles and reports are of limited evidentiary value because they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will meaningfully impact the shortage”
“his professional plan does not articulate exactly how his venture would alleviate the shortage he references to meet the standard of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as the opinion does not meaningfully address the details of any proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports are of limited evidentiary value because they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will meaningfully impact the shortage”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these items mainly go to whether he is well-positioned ... rather than national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these documents go to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor and the Director determined that the Petitioner is well positioned”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner provides no study, business plan, or projections about how his proposed endeavor will impact anyone beyond his specific employer.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
746coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO expressly declined to address prongs 2 and 3 since the Director had already found those met and only national importance was contested; AAO reserved appellate arguments on the unaddressed prong per Bagamasbad. Petitioner's shortage-based economic argument was rejected for lack of endeavor-specific evidence despite crediting the existence of a general pilot shortage.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod