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 commercial airline captain flying Airbus A320 aircraft, proposed to continue his piloting career while mentoring and inspiring younger and underrepresented aspiring pilots.
Field: commercial aviation / airline piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We conclude that a national shortage of professionals in a particular field does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently analyzed and substantiated how one pilot will improve a national shortage or trigger substantial positive economic impacts”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how these benefits are attributable to his specific endeavor”
“We conclude that preventing a negative effect is not necessarily sufficient to establish an affirmative positive impact that rises to the level of national importance”
“his individual and cumulative work in these areas do not appear to operate on a scale that rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he does not identify how much time he will devote to activities”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it does not overcome the Director's findings or our above analysis”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“We received this evidence after the deadline for filing this appeal. Although we need not consider this evidence, we nevertheless examined the submission”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
Petitioner cited Wickard v. Filburn (a Commerce Clause case about aggregate economic effects of wheat production) to argue cumulative national impact of an individual pilot; AAO rejected this analogy, distinguishing between preventing negative effects (safety violations) versus establishing affirmative positive impact of national importance. Petitioner also raised race/diversity-based arguments (executive orders on racial equity, being 'a person of color' as inspirational value) which AAO found insufficiently tied to national importance of the specific endeavor.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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