The Petitioner, a pilot and certified flight instructor with a Master of Science in Aeronautics, proposed to work as an FAA-designated pilot examiner (DPE), evaluating and certifying new pilots to address certification delays and pilot shortages.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“SCOPS determined that the letter did not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would result in the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated in Dhanasar.”

“the Petitioner appears to have broadly considered the cumulative impact of DPEs in general rather than focusing on her specific endeavor”

“she has not established that a national shortage of professionals in her field necessarily demonstrates the national importance of her proposed endeavor, since the shortage does not in itself establish the endeavor's impact.”

“none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor to work as a DPE extends beyond the pilots she would train and certify to impact the aviation field or the United States more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “SCOPS deemed such evidence insufficient to show how the Petitioner's specific endeavor to work as a DPE would impact those initiatives.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner resubmits previously submitted evidence and argues that SCOPS made "fundamental errors of law and fact."”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

Unusual applicant occupation (FAA designated pilot examiner); AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that a national shortage of DPEs itself demonstrates national importance, and clarified that SCOPS's decision (unlike an earlier RFE) did not contain erroneous references to an unrelated visa category.

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