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 pilot and flight operations instructor, proposed to continue his career in the United States as a pilot, flight instructor, or aviation safety specialist for an airline employer.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the self-petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer”
“merely working in an important field, industry, or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“he did not provide sufficient evidence that a single pilot or pilot instructor at”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the Petitioner has not supported his claims with pertinent evidence showing that the individual work at one specific airline will generate substantial revenue”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters do not offer sufficient information to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW denials are discretionary, joining 9th/11th/D.C. Circuits; petitioner's endeavor description shifted across filing stages (pilot/instructor/safety specialist/doctoral student/professor), which AAO treated as evidence of vagueness.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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