The Petitioner, an airline pilot, proposed to work for a major U.S. commercial airline in a management pilot position, including flight-safety monitoring and pilot instruction/check-airman duties, to help address the U.S. pilot shortage and enhance flight safety.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong”

“merely working in the aviation field as a pilot, pilot instructor, or flight safety advisor for a commercial airline is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process directly addresses such shortages of qualified workers”

“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss how the Petitioner working as in a management pilot position for a commercial airline will overcome the shortage of pilots”

“the content of these letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the second and third prongs”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the content of these letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “none of the evidence, including the employment letters, flight logs, and employment contracts, indicates the Petitioner worked on a full-time basis”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the record does not show that either... is comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, or that it otherwise constitutes a professional association”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss how the Petitioner working as in a management pilot position for a commercial airline will overcome the shortage”

  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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• 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

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable exceptional-ability finding sua sponte on de novo review even though the appeal was ultimately decided on Dhanasar prong one; it explicitly reserved prongs two and three as unnecessary to reach.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Visinscaia v. Beers

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