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 former Brazilian military helicopter pilot, proposed to work in the U.S. as a commercial pilot and flight instructor while also serving as an airline-industry retention consultant and a negotiator/consultant on military aircraft modernization and procurement.
Field: aviation (commercial/helicopter piloting, flight instruction, aviation consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the record did not establish that the commercial pilot occupation, or the other roles (flight instructor, consultant), require a bachelor's degree for entry, undermining professional classification; however this was not the basis for dismissal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor includes several distinct professions with little understanding of how he intends to carry out these distinct endeavors simultaneously.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
“proposing to work in an occupation with a national shortage ... is insufficient to demonstrate that an endeavor has national importance.”
“the importance of an endeavor is determined by its potential prospective impact, not by the importance of the industry or occupation it involves.”
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or global implications that would reach beyond his potential employers or the student pilots he may instruct.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter has limited probative value”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not address the potential economic effects of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO flagged a threshold occupation/profession deficiency (multiple inconsistent occupations claimed: pilot, instructor, consultant, negotiator) but declined to rest dismissal on it, instead deciding solely on prong one; also treated a post-filing LLC formation and amended professional plan as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, excluding the business/entrepreneurial endeavor from consideration.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp