dismissedJUL082024_05B52032024-07-08 · combined · Nebraska 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 with an advanced degree in Flight Test Engineering, sought to continue working as a commercial pilot in the United States.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's assertions on motion regarding his potential employment as an aerospace engineer are speculative in that they are not tied to one specific endeavor but to the possibility that, in the future, he may choose to pursue a career in aerospace engineering.”

“The Petitioner's claim that his role as a commercial pilot is nationally important due to a shortage of qualified workers fails to address why he is unable to seek labor certification through a qualifying job offer as Congress intended.”

“The Petitioner does not offer any objective evidence supporting his assertion that his endeavor to work as a commercial airline pilot for a specific airline will create a "robust aviation sector"”

“This statement is not supported with any analysis regarding the Petitioner's record on flight safety or in what ways American aviation as a whole would be improved by the Petitioner”

“This statement could be made of any individual working in the transportation industry and is not evidence that the Petitioner's work would benefit anyone beyond the airline he works for or the passengers on his specific flights.”

“the Petitioner has not established that his specific role as a commercial airline pilot working for a specific airline has the ability to impact the aviation industry as a whole and rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not provide specific information related to the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“We do not dispute the importance of the aviation industry in the United States or its integral part in the overall economy”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility.”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that it applied an incorrect standard of proof, and separately rejected a new theory raised on motion that the Petitioner might pursue aerospace engineering in the future, citing the rule against approving petitions based on facts arising after filing (Matter of Izummi/Bardouille).

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)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Bardouille
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Izummi

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer