The Petitioner, a commercial pilot, proposed to work as a pilot for U.S. companies facing pilot shortages, train others, and also develop his own aviation services company (I-A-C-) as CEO providing pilot outsourcing, aircraft management, and related services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the record remains insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, as the evidence regarding the occupation in which the Petitioner seeks to be employed and the proposed endeavor that he intends to pursue is inconsistent”

“none of the previously provided publications address the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor and, as such, they do not establish how his specific endeavor may be of national importance”

“the endeavor appears to benefit the specific clients or other entities and individuals who may use his services”

“Nor does the record demonstrate how generating a total of 31 full-time and part-time positions establishes a 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers ... or other substantial positive economic effects'”

“we focus on the 'specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake,' and evidence of the 'potential prospective impact' of the noncitizen's work rather than generalizations about the importance of an industry, field, or profession”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “we cannot give the professional and business plans he submitted significant probative weight”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “none of the previously provided publications address the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “are not material to the first Dhanasar prong ... and we need not address them further in this context”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

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

Notable

AAO flagged (in a footnote) unresolved evidentiary inconsistencies between English and Spanish versions of the Petitioner's diploma regarding whether he held a true bachelor's degree, but did not use this to disturb the Director's favorable threshold finding. The core dispositive issue was an inconsistency between the Form I-140's stated job (Commercial Pilot) and the business/professional plans describing the Petitioner's role as company CEO, which undermined the national importance analysis.

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.

• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers