dismissedOCT082024_01B52032024-10-08 · 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 pilot, intended to join a civilian search-and-rescue organization or a comparable civilian air ambulance service, while also training his employer's pilots and assisting in training law enforcement pilots.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the importance of the field does not determine the proposed endeavor's national importance”

“the provided evidence and the Petitioner's assertions, do not adequately explain how his intention to fill a single position as a pilot or to work as an instructor would have a national impact on this very large, claimed national shortage”

“Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence”

“beyond this broad remark, the writers neglected to specifically illustrate how the proposed endeavor would be nationally important”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“beyond this broad remark, the writers neglected to specifically illustrate how the proposed endeavor would be nationally important”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“they are of little evidentiary value to the issue of national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these are his past actions. His proposed endeavor is not to work in his past position.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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

A footnote rebuts the appeal brief's claim that the Director failed to address the well-positioned prong, noting the Director had in fact deemed that prong satisfied. AAO also chastised the petitioner for submitting articles/reports missing pages, instructing that future submissions include all relevant pages.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer