dismissedJUL092024_07B52032024-07-09 · 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 aircraft mechanic, proposed to continue working repairing aircraft mechanical problems and training other mechanics, asserting this would help small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises improve productivity and generate revenue.
Field: aircraft maintenance / aviation mechanics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner relies on the importance of the aviation industry in general rather than establishing the national importance of his endeavor as an aviation mechanic.”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation.”
“the record does not show how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the prospective aviation company or other mechanics that he trains, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to specific services.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services would have broader implications for our country.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 →
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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