dismissedJUL092024_10B52032024-07-09 · appeal · 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 pilot and flight instructor, proposed to work as a commercial pilot providing flight command, cargo operations, and flight instruction services, later adding cargo transport of sensitive goods, in the United States.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting and flight instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the American aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's argument that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because of increased demand and a potential to address labor shortages in the field.”
“the Petitioner does not offer the basis for this number of trainees or an explanation for how he intends to train or license this number of pilots.”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that this endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity.”
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer the basis for this number of trainees or an explanation for how he intends to train or license this number of pilots.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
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
- 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
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
AAO reserved both the threshold EB-2 classification issue and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, resting the dismissal solely on prong 1's national importance failure; petitioner's claim of denial due to 'abandonment' was addressed and rejected as inaccurate characterization of the record.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
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