dismissedJAN032025_02B52032025-01-03 · 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 commercial pilot, proposed to pilot fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters on nonscheduled air carrier routes and to work as a flight instructor training other pilots, eventually seeking employment with major airlines.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“the record does not establish he would be impacting his field more broadly”
“the proposed endeavor does not introduce new training processes or methodologies”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they were not supported by evidence showing broader implications of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
- media · ignored
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
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
The Director had already found substantial merit was met, and AAO agreed, so the case turned entirely on national importance; AAO expressly declined to reach threshold EB-2 classification, prong 2, or prong 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad on avoiding advisory findings.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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