dismissedSEP072023_05B52032023-09-07 · 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 initially proposed to work in the U.S. as a pilot/airline captain who would also mentor, instruct, and consult within the aviation industry; after filing he shifted to describing a role as vice president of a private aviation company providing consulting services and opening a new flight academy.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its national importance.”

“It is important to note that the shortage of pilots, as well as aviation instructors, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“Specifically, how one pilot will improve a national shortage or will trigger substantial positive economic impacts has not been explained.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's endeavor as initially stated.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“While these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“his knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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 made an impermissible material change to his proposed endeavor by shifting from 'pilot/airline captain' to 'VP of aviation company operating a flight academy' in response to the RFE, and declined to consider the new endeavor on appeal, evaluating only the originally stated endeavor (which it found too vague/unclear in scope to assess national importance).

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
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer