NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV062024_05B52032024-11-06 · 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 aircraft pilot, proposed to work as a pilot in Florida while building a company/platform connecting private jet owners and clients with vetted pilots on demand, aiming to address a pilot shortage.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“he has not sufficiently shown his business's purported "knock-on-effect" on the U.S. economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “he has not sufficiently shown his business's purported "knock-on-effect" on the U.S. economy.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 expressly declined to resolve the underlying exceptional-ability (threshold EB-2) issue, invoking INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to reserve it since the prong 1 national importance failure was independently dispositive.

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)(iii)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer