dismissedOCT022024_03B52032024-10-02 · 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, a commercial pilot, proposed to work as a captain, co-pilot, and flight instructor for U.S. airlines or private industry, later adding an intention to open a small flight school offering pilot training programs.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not automatically render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“he did not explain how his proposed endeavor of being a captain, co-pilot, and trainer would have national or global implications within the aviation field, beyond the impact on his future employer(s)”

“No information was provided on what national or global impact the Petitioner's business would have on the industry beyond the impact to the business itself and the Petitioner's customers”

“the Petitioner did not submit, for example, a business plan explaining the proposed location of the business and evidence of growth metrics”

“the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

media · discounted
“the Petitioner here does not specify how the articles and report, discussing the importance of the industry as a whole, are probative”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert did not cite to the FAA article referred to in their letter and a copy was not provided in the record”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit, for example, a business plan explaining the proposed location of the business and evidence of growth metrics”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence of the Petitioner's past entrepreneurial achievements”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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

AAO found the Petitioner's RFE response adding a flight-school business constituted an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, and separately analyzed (in a footnote) that even treating it as elaboration, national importance was still unestablished. AAO also distinguished Dhanasar itself, noting the articles there corroborated government interest and were paired with expert letters, unlike here.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer