dismissedJAN112023_04B52032023-01-11 · 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 commercial pilot, proposed to continue working as a pilot for U.S. airlines, asserting this would help alleviate the national pilot shortage and benefit the aviation industry and economy.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described, is not specific enough to determine its broader impact.”
“the labor certification process addresses shortages of qualified workers in fields.”
“The Petitioner repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of the field, rather than the 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 labor certification process addresses shortages of qualified workers in fields.”
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”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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 footnote 4, the AAO added an alternative holding that even if it reached prongs two and three, it would still dismiss because the petitioner 'references the same supporting already in the record and does not provide any new evidence,' effectively applying motion-style 'no new evidence' reasoning within a direct appeal.
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