remandedMAY102023_04B52032023-05-10 · 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.

The petitioner, a commercial airline pilot with over 13 years of experience, sought to continue working as a commercial pilot for a major U.S. airline.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found the Petitioner met at least three of six exceptional ability criteria (certificates, ten years experience, air transport pilot licenses); remanded for Director to conduct final merits determination.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the Director's decision does not include an analysis of the evidence submitted and an explanation of its deficiency in this regard.”

“this is followed by the conclusory statement that this evidence does not support the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“the analysis references facts that do not appear in the record or pertain to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“the Director mentions the lack of evidence to support the claims made in these letters and the Petitioner's "research plan," despite the Petitioner's endeavor not involving research.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“he did not address the Petitioner's arguments relating to the urgency created by a shortage of qualified pilots in the United States.”

“he based his decision in part on a finding of "inconsistencies in the Petitioner's purported proposed endeavor," but did not identify these inconsistencies.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · ignored
“letters of support "from scholars in the Aviation field" which were included in the initial filing, but those letters were from the Petitioner's fellow commercial pilots”
AAO decision text
certification membership · credited
resume experience · credited
funding · ignored
“the Director refers to the lack of evidence of funding to support the Petitioner's endeavor, including grants and "correspondence from potential investors"”
AAO decision text

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Unusual reversal-of-fortune decision: AAO found the Director's denial riddled with factual errors and boilerplate, including mischaracterizing pilot colleagues' letters as being from 'scholars in the Aviation field,' referencing a nonexistent 'research plan,' citing unidentified 'inconsistencies' the AAO could not find on its own review, and even incorrectly telling the Petitioner there was no right to appeal. AAO remanded on all prongs rather than deciding eligibility itself.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The Director's denial was conclusory and factually erroneous (misattributing research/funding claims not made), failing to explain reasoning as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1), requiring remand.

Transferable lesson

Petitioners should preserve records showing Director errors (misstated facts, unaddressed arguments like labor shortage) to support remand for reasoned adjudication rather than re-litigating merits alone.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · other

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer