NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR242025_05B52032025-03-24 · appeal · Texas 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.

A commercial airline pilot with 28 years of experience proposed to work in the U.S. as a pilot, flight instructor, and aviation consultant, addressing an alleged national pilot shortage and improving aviation safety and efficiency.

Field: commercial aviation / airline piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance”
“it is not clear how filing one pilot position would have a national impact on this claimed airline pilot shortage”
“a shortage of workers alone does not establish that a proposed endeavor would likely have a prospective national impact”
“the conclusions from the expert, much like the Petitioner's, lack specificity and support”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”
“The Petitioner does not sufficiently detail and document how his work in the aviation field would be materially different from any other similar experienced employee”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not submitted specific and targeted business plans but provides generic assertions”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the conclusions from the expert, much like the Petitioner's, lack specificity and support”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “these do not represent specific plans to address each of these aspects of the aviation industry...but mere discussion of his skills and experience”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “These provided numbers not only illustrate the size of the aviation industry as a whole...leaving question as to the Petitioner's contention”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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 found the endeavor internally contradictory: Petitioner claimed to primarily work as an active airline pilot while also having national impact through consulting/training across multiple distinct segments of the aviation industry (safety, acquisitions, operations, pilot shortage), which the AAO found implausible given the industry's scale ($193 billion revenue, ~454,000 employees).

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer