dismissedDEC052023_03B52032023-12-05 · 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, a pilot and aspiring aircraft engineer, proposed to work in flight testing and product enhancement for a U.S. aircraft manufacturer, develop a new flight-instructor training course, and eventually open his own flight school.
Field: aviation/aerospace engineering and flight instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's general ambitions to work as an aircraft engineer, pilot trainer, or both, may benefit his current or potential employer(s)”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's instructional goals may "resolve the shortage [of pilots, as the Petitioner asserted] or produce an impact that rises to the level of national importance."”
“the record does not establish that the "specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake," ... may have the type of broader implications contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the record does not articulate the location of the flight school, the number of employees his flight school would hire, the wages the Petitioner would pay those employees”
“the generalized information regarding the aviation industry referenced on appeal does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“those assertions in response to the RFE present a new set of facts... cannot-and do not-establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the generalized information regarding the aviation industry ... does not address ... how the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- 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
1,312coded 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 AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi (material-change-of-facts doctrine) apply only to underlying visa classification issues raised on motion, not to NIW 'ancillary benefits' or RFE responses, holding instead that the job-offer-waiver eligibility must also be established as of the filing date.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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