The Petitioner, a flight instructor holding flight instructor ratings from four countries, sought to work as a flight instructor at a U.S. flight training academy, asserting his multi-country credentials would attract more students and help address a national pilot shortage.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's vague assertion that his proposed work would have a potential positive impact on the number of pilots in the United States does not serve as probative evidence to demonstrate its national impact on the field of aviation.”

“The Petitioner has not explained how his intention to fill a single position at a flight school to instruct students in a field of high demand would alleviate an asserted national shortage of pilots.”

“shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that his endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance”

“the importance of a nationwide issue does not confer national importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a flight instructor”

“it is not clear how the Petitioner's employment as a flight instructor for a training academy in the United States would have a positive economic impact at the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's experience is generally relevant not to the first prong of the Dhanasar adjudicative framework, but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that his endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field”

  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
• 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

Notable

The Director's decision contained an internal contradiction regarding how many exceptional-ability criteria the Petitioner met (finding both two and three criteria satisfied in different parts of the denial); the AAO also noted the Director erroneously treated the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as airline piloting rather than flight instruction. A footnote addresses irrelevant military-service naturalization evidence submitted by the Petitioner, clarifying the AAO lacks jurisdiction over N-400 matters.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp