dismissedFEB182025_04B52032025-02-18 · 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 as an airline transport pilot first officer or Pilatus PC12 captain, while also mentoring and instructing entry-level pilots on flight safety and collaborating with industry professionals on aviation technology and safety.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence based on these letters to establish that his proposed work as an aircraft pilot and instructor for an aviation business would impact the aviation field more broadly, rather than benefiting his prospective employer and its clients.”

“And if in fact these shortages can be addressed by adding additional qualified professionals like the Petitioner, they would be better addressed through the U.S. Department of Labor's labor certification process.”

“The industry articles do not discuss how the Petitioner working as a pilot and a pilot instructor for an aviation business will overcome the shortage of pilots and aviation workers in the United States or impact the U.S. economy to the level commensurate with national importance.”

“Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or the need for workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the content of these recommendation letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“The industry articles do not discuss how the Petitioner working as a pilot and a pilot instructor for an aviation business will overcome the shortage”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The opinion's focus, however, is on how the aviation industry impacts the U.S. economy, and that the Petitioner's professional knowledge and experience would benefit the aviation industry.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · ignored
“we will not consider this new evidence for the first time on appeal, as it was not presented to the Director after the Petitioner had an opportunity”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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

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 reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue entirely, deciding the case solely on Dhanasar prong 1's national importance requirement, which was dispositive. AAO declined to consider two new expert opinion letters offered on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano, despite petitioner's argument that the original opinion was submitted without his review by a former attorney.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer