dismissedMAY262022_01B52032022-05-26 · 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 avionics engineer, proposed to continue working in aircraft maintenance, repair, and systems improvement for U.S. companies, while also planning to start her own avionics support business and create youth/education outreach programs to encourage women and students to enter aviation.

Field: avionics engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employer or her company and its clientele to impact the engineering field, the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States.”

“the record does not demonstrate that her instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond her trainees to impact the aviation field or her industry more broadly.”

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

“the relevant question is not the 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."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's avionics skills, knowledge, and experience in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

The Petitioner's arguments about industry-wide shortages of aviation mechanics were explicitly rejected as a basis for national importance, with the AAO noting that labor shortages are properly addressed through the labor certification process, not a waiver.

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.

Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer