dismissedMAY212025_05B52032025-05-21 · appeal

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 airline pilot and flight instructor, sought to continue his career in the U.S. as a pilot and Embraer flight/ground instructor, with aspirations to become a route development agent and operational safety management agent.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the purpose of the national interest waiver is not to facilitate a petitioner's job search in the United States.”

“it does not establish his job search' s potential prospective impact because it does not demonstrate that it has national or even global implications for the field”

“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient relevant evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific services”

“the shortage of pilots, as well as aviation instructors, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“Broad assertions are insufficient to show the national importance of the proposed endeavor absent sufficient evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient relevant evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the shortage of pilots, as well as aviation instructors, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

NEW job search not national interest purpose · p1
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1coded 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

The AAO noted in a footnote that a non-precedent AAO decision cited by the Petitioner on appeal is not binding under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c). SCOPS did not address the Petitioner's alternative eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. The AAO expressly declined to reach the second and third Dhanasar prongs, reserving them as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.

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. 103.3(c)
Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer