dismissedSEP142021_05B52032021-09-14 · appeal · Nebraska 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 continue his career by applying to jobs with major U.S. airlines, cargo carriers, low-cost carriers, flight simulator training facilities, and private corporate flight operators, and later added a plan to sell pilot training/instruction packages to foreign airlines.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, satisfying only two of six regulatory criteria (license/certification and ten years of experience); academic record, salary, membership, and recognition criteria were not met. He did not claim advanced degree professional status.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“Based upon the information provided, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may be summarized as engaging in a U.S. job search within the field of aviation.”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not yet identified his specific endeavor.”

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“we conclude that he has not substantiated how his specific work in the aviation industry will address a pilot shortage or positively impact the economy.”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided adequate documentation to establish this.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
certification membership · discounted
“the evidence is insufficient to establish membership in a professional association.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors of these documents do not discuss or demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they are of limited value in this matter, as none of them addresses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's entrepreneurial idea is new and additional rather than a clarification to the previously claimed proposed endeavor.”
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 threshold exceptional-ability ineligibility independently dispositive but proceeded to analyze prong 1 as an alternate basis, explicitly noting each basis for dismissal is independent and alternate. Petitioner attempted to add a new entrepreneurial 'one stop shop' pilot-training business endeavor on appeal, which AAO rejected as an improper new claim rather than a clarification, citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of Izummi
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer