dismissedMAY192023_01B52032023-05-19 · 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, an airfield operations specialist, proposed to work in the U.S. aviation industry implementing safety procedures, aircraft logistics mapping, and flight operations coordination to increase safety and efficiency for a future employer airline.

Field: airfield/airport operations (aviation) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer to impact the airfield operations field, the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's airfield operations projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The letter from Dr. C-A- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text
other · credited

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

2,501coded 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 credited substantial merit based on general field literature but found national importance lacking because the specific endeavor's impact appeared employer-specific; used a Dhanasar teaching-activity analogy (petitioner's proposed work compared to Dhanasar's own teaching example) to explain insufficient broader impact.

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 L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer