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 foreign-trained commercial airline pilot, sought to continue working as a pilot for U.S. air carriers and requested a national interest waiver to bypass the labor certification/job offer requirement.
Field: commercial aviation / airline piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not hold a U.S. or foreign equivalent advanced degree (only a foreign high-school equivalent) and, although AAO found he met two of the exceptional-ability criteria (degree/license and experience), the totality of the evidence did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in aviation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to this prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“We conclude that this credential evaluation is of little probative value to the issue at hand.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these types of qualifications are part of the normal course of employment and professional development in the field of aviation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they were not accompanied by corroborative evidence showing the impact of the Petitioner's work in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she does not substantively document or analyze the specific ways in which the Petitioner has made significant contributions to his field”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- media · discounted
“without more, the Petitioner has not shown how the successful performance of his duties and responsibilities...establish that he has been recognized”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“He does not, however, provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determinations.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO partially withdrew the Director's finding on the exceptional-ability degree criterion (finding it met) but still denied on final merits determination; the NIW prong 1 discussion largely consists of adopting and affirming the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than independent AAO analysis.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- 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