dismissedJAN172025_01B52032025-01-17 · motion_reconsider · 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 airline pilot, sought a national interest waiver based on his role as a pilot, with a personal statement suggesting he might pursue aerospace engineering in the future.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we again concluded the Petitioner did not establish his role as a commercial airline pilot for a specific airline has the potential to impact the aviation industry as a whole, thus rising to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner's critical role in addressing the current shortage of airline pilots and that his proposed endeavor "aligns with national initiative and is poised to impact the national economy positively" - arguments we considered and addressed in our prior motion decision.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the record reflects our consideration of all evidence in the totality, including a careful weighing of all evidence.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's contentions in his current motion largely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“a petition cannot be approved based on a speculative, possible future new set of facts.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

746coded 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

This is the third adverse AAO decision in the case (appeal, then combined motion to reopen/reconsider, then this motion to reconsider). The Petitioner raised a novel argument citing Buletini v. INS regarding weighing of evidence, which the AAO distinguished and rejected. The AAO emphasized it need not address every piece of evidence when reasoned consideration is given, citing Guaman-Loja v. Holder.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Buletini v. INS
Matter of Coelho
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer