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 experienced commercial airline pilot, sought to continue offering piloting services to U.S. airline employers.
Field: commercial aviation / airline piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability (not advanced degree); met three of six regulatory criteria (academic record, experience, licensure) but AAO agreed with Director that record did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in aviation; letters lacked corroboration of impact and pilot training/licensure were deemed normal requirements for the occupation, not evidence of exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner did not establish its national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the letters were not accompanied by corroborative evidence showing the impact of the Petitioner's work, such as examples of implementation of his piloting or training strategies”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The Petitioner's arguments on appeal do not establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters were not accompanied by corroborative evidence showing the impact of the Petitioner's work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these types of qualifications are part of the normal course of employment and professional development in the field of aviation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“required for entry into the profession, demonstrate his exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“his academic achievements, and his license, both required for entry into the profession”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
AAO rejected counsel's due-process argument that Director should have issued a second RFE, noting an RFE had in fact been issued and answered. AAO also flagged that portions of the appeal brief referenced 'extraordinary ability' (the EB-1 standard) rather than the EB-2 exceptional-ability standard at issue, questioning whether the brief was accurately tailored to this petitioner. Threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability failure was treated as fully dispositive, with the Dhanasar prongs addressed only in a brief alternative-holding paragraph.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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