dismissedJAN112023_03B52032023-01-11 · 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, sought to continue working as an airline pilot for U.S. airlines, applying his aviation experience to help address the U.S. pilot shortage.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the labor certification process addresses shortages of qualified workers in fields”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and documented how his work as a pilot for U.S. airline companies would produce an impact rising to the level of national importance”

“the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job search”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“This fact alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance.”
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

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

In a footnote, the AAO stated that even if it had reached prongs two and three, it would still dismiss the appeal, noting the Petitioner 'references the same supporting [evidence] already in the record and does not provide any new evidence' on appeal — language echoing the motion boilerplate for reasserting previously stated facts, though this case is an appeal rather than a motion.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer