NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT072022_01B52032022-10-07 · 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 airline pilot, proposed to work as a pilot for U.S. airline companies, including training and evaluating other pilots, in order to help address the U.S. pilot shortage.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree equivalent); not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Simply working in a field where there is a shortage falls short of showing that the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has a prospective national impact.”
“none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of the field, rather than the importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“none of the letters described the proposed endeavor or explained why it has national importance”
“the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner will meaningfully diminish the airline pilot shortage as a result of his proposed endeavor”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
“the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job search”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not support the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong as they do not discuss the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “his career accomplishments illustrate that he performed well in his positions, they do not support a finding that he impacted the field”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · ignored
    “it does not support a finding of impact to the field of aviation”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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 explicitly addresses and rejects the Petitioner's argument that the Director erred by not analyzing prongs 2 and 3 separately, holding that failure on prong 1 alone is dispositive and further analysis would serve no purpose; also addresses a military-service/accolades evidence category not in the standard vocabulary.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of V-K-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer