dismissedAUG272024_05B52032024-08-27 · 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 airline pilot, proposed to work in the United States as a flight instructor, teaching and training pilots to help address a pilot shortage and support aviation safety and the economy.

Field: aviation / flight instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not offer evidence to show how his proposed endeavor would impact the air transportation industry or otherwise would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”

“However, they do not address the relevant question of the importance of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather than the general field in which he intends to work.”

“However, the evidence submitted does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage in the air travel field as claimed.”

“Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

“we conclude the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential students or employers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the inquiry in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they do not address the relevant question of the importance of the specific endeavor... rather than the general field”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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

1,581coded 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 reach the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability issue or prongs 2/3 because prong 1's national importance failure was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer