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 commercial pilot with over nine years of experience, intended to continue working as an airline pilot in the United States, asserting this would help address a national pilot shortage and train new pilots.
Field: commercial aviation / piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found sufficient initial evidence for exceptional ability criteria but did not make a final merits determination; AAO declined to reach this issue since the appeal fails on prong 1, reserving it as unnecessary to the disposition.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“a shortage of workers in a petitioner's field does not alone demonstrate the national impact of a proposed endeavor”
“he does not sufficiently describe how filling one pilot position would have a national impact on this large industry”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his proposed employer and its clientele”
“The Petitioner submitted generic and unsupported assertions regarding the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“emphasizing his skills and experience”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a shortage of workers in a petitioner's field does not alone demonstrate the national impact of a proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“provided no supporting evidence to substantiate this assertion, providing only a letter”
AAO decision text
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 expressly declines to remand for a final merits determination on the underlying exceptional-ability classification because the appeal fails dispositively on prong 1; also notes Petitioner did not claim advanced-degree eligibility.
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)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- 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