dismissedAPR242024_05B52032024-04-24 · 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.

A commercial airline pilot sought to continue working as a pilot, instructor, or training manager for U.S. airlines, aviation schools, or universities, and to offer aviation education programs through his own company.

Field: commercial aviation / airline piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO agreed with the Director that although the Petitioner met three of six exceptional-ability criteria, the totality of evidence in the final merits determination did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the profession.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described his proposed endeavor, and his claims that his employment as a pilot and flight instructor "will support millions of jobs all over the world" are insufficient”

“a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement”

“insufficient to establish how his endeavor's impact will extend beyond his customers and employers to the broader aviation field”

“It also does not quantify what economic benefits the endeavor will generate, particularly in a depressed area”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the evidence did not support a finding that the Petitioner has expertise significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered in the profession”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the record did not document how he plans to create his 'aviation education programs' ... nor does it demonstrate how doing this will provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response”
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

2,589coded 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

The Petitioner claimed exceptional ability rather than advanced-degree professional status (footnote 4). In footnote 6, the AAO added an alternative holding that even if it reached the second and third Dhanasar prongs, the appeal would still be dismissed because the Petitioner merely re-submitted the same evidence already found deficient by the Director.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Chen v. INS
Flores v. Garland
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of L-A-C-
Visinscaia v. Beers

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer