dismissedAPR182025_04B52032025-04-18 · appeal
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, an airline pilot, proposed to work as a pilot and ground/flight instructor in the U.S. aviation industry, providing advanced pilot training and helping address the pilot shortage and aviation safety.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not articulate how his work would extend beyond his individual employers, passengers, and trainees to impact the aviation industry more broadly at a level indicative of national importance”
“The Petitioner did not provide any data, projections, or other bases for these figures.”
“the record does not indicate that the Petitioner would employ any individuals and T-S- does not articulate how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his employers, passengers, and trainees to have substantial economic effects indicative of national importance”
“these letters do not indicate that any of the Petitioner's proposed training or past accomplishments have national or global implications in his field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not articulate how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his employers, passengers, and trainees to impact the aviation industry more broadly”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The record does not indicate that any of these articles have been cited by or relied upon by other aviation experts.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide any data, projections, or other bases for these figures.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded 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 reserved both the EB-2 exceptional ability threshold determination and prongs 2-3 of Dhanasar, resolving the case entirely on prong 1's national importance failure. Petitioner's projected job-creation figures (480-524 pilots trained, 1,333-1,455 indirect jobs) were rejected as unsupported by any data or methodology.
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
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