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 pilot, sought to work as a commercial airline pilot in the United States (initially aiming to become a captain and possibly join NASA); he later attempted to add a claim of working as an 'Aerial Technology Specialist' managing his own drone technology company, which the AAO rejected as a material change.
Field: aviation / commercial piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the evidence addressed how the petitioner's individual employment as a pilot would affect the field of commercial piloting broadly”
“the record does not contain any supporting evidence that the work of one pilot would have a nationally significant impact in the field of aviation”
“one single pilot cannot solve the airline shortage”
“the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his employment as a pilot and his employer to affect the region or nation more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this plan does not make any references to running his own business”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not support that the Petitioner's methodologies or expertise have significantly impacted the field of aviation”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits the same recommendation letters, licenses and certificates, resume, and business plan, that are already on record”
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
- 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 Petitioner attempted to shift his proposed endeavor mid-petition from commercial pilot to 'Aerial Technology Specialist' running a drone company after the RFE; AAO found this a material change under Matter of Izummi and declined to consider it. The Petitioner argued a 'collective of singular pilots' theory to establish national importance from an aggregation of individual pilot NIW petitions, which the AAO rejected.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod