NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG012024_14B52032024-08-01 · 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, an experienced commercial pilot, proposed to work in the U.S. as a pilot, flight simulator instructor, flight standards specialist, and ETOPS (extended twin-engine operations) expert in the aviation industry.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The articles and reports do not directly address the Petitioner's specific proposed undertaking and do not adequately explain how his proposed endeavor offers benefits that extend beyond his employer and their customers”
“a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver”
“lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the economic impact analysis”
“the record does not sufficiently establish that this undertaking has broader implications for the field of aviation, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in his classes or training sessions”
“the record does not sufficiently explain how his proposed endeavor offers benefits that extend beyond the airline company he will serve, their customers, and other pilots within the airline company”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The expert opinion letter discusses about the field of aviation but not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the record does not contain sufficient evidence supporting the income projections or job creation”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “The articles and reports do not directly address the Petitioner's specific proposed undertaking”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited
  • certification membership · credited
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “they do not indicate that the government has a particular interest in the Petitioner's planned employment activities”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • 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 found petitioner met threshold EB-2 and substantial merit but failed solely on national importance (prong 1), reserving prongs 2 and 3 entirely. Detailed economic impact analysis with specific dollar projections ($156,000,000 over 5 years, 559 jobs) was rejected for lacking supporting methodological detail. Pilot shortage argument explicitly rejected as insufficient alone, with AAO noting labor certification process is the proper vehicle for addressing worker shortages.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer