dismissedJAN192023_04B52032023-01-19 · 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, an experienced pilot, proposed to work in the United States as an airline pilot and/or flight instructor, asserting this would help alleviate a national pilot shortage and benefit the U.S. economy.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its substantial merit and national importance.”

“he has not substantiated how his specific work in the aviation industry will address a pilot shortage or positively impact the economy.”

“how one pilot will improve a national shortage or will trigger substantial positive economic impacts has not been explained.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor is unclear.”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

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 found the endeavor to have substantial merit and that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, denying solely on national importance/balance grounds; the AAO instead found the proposed endeavor itself insufficiently defined (pilot vs. flight instructor, unclear timeline/allocation of roles), reversing the merit finding and declining to reach prongs two and three as moot.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to identify a single, clearly defined proposed endeavor (pilot vs. instructor, timing unclear), making it impossible to assess national importance under prong one.

Transferable lesson

Define one concrete endeavor with clear scope/timeline and provide evidence quantifying its prospective national-scale impact, not just industry-wide shortage narratives or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer