The Petitioner, an experienced airline pilot and flight instructor, proposed to work as a pilot for U.S. airlines and to train future pilots, asserting this would help address a national pilot shortage and benefit the U.S. aviation economy.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The provided evidence and the Petitioner's assertions, however, do not explain how his intention to fill a single position as a pilot or to work as an instructor would alleviate an asserted national shortage of pilots.”

“shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that his endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance”

“the importance of a nationwide issue does not confer national importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a pilot or an instructor”

“he submitted little explanation for how the employment of one pilot and instructor would have a national impact on such a large industry”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “an individual's experience is generally relevant not to the first prong of the Dhanasar adjudicative framework, but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “an individual's experience is generally relevant not to the first prong of the Dhanasar adjudicative framework, but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “he submitted little explanation for how the employment of one pilot and instructor would have a national impact on such a large industry”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO explicitly distinguishes evidence relevant to prong 1 (national importance of the specific endeavor) from evidence relevant to prong 2 (personal experience/qualifications), noting the Petitioner's humanitarian and combat-zone flight experience was misapplied to prong 1. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) on the discretionary nature of NIW determinations, joining other circuits.

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, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp