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, proposed to provide aviation safety and survival training services to clients and students in the United States.
Field: aviation safety and survival training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner established he is an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not show that his future work would sufficiently extend beyond his clientele and students to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner also has not demonstrated how his proposed endeavor would have a significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner submitted additional documents with his appeal, but this evidence was already contained in the record.”
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
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's prong-one analysis rather than restating it, citing Matter of Burbano and Giday v. INS as authority for that practice; declined to reach prongs two and three under Bagamasbad.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated importance of the aviation safety/training industry with the national importance of his specific endeavor, failing to show impact beyond his own clients/students or economic effects at national scale.
Tie evidence to the specific proposed endeavor's broader, quantifiable national-scale impact, not general industry significance or personal client base.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu