NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP142023_05B52032023-09-14 · 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 commercial airline pilot, sought to continue working as a pilot in the U.S., framing his work as addressing pilot shortages in the airline industry.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Director found Petitioner met only 3 of the needed exceptional-ability criteria (A, C, E); evidence for 10-years-experience (B) and peer/industry recognition (F) criteria was deficient—letters lacked full-time/part-time specification, job duty descriptions, and were uncorroborated by independent objective evidence; unresolved inconsistencies in employment dates; final merits determination concluded Petitioner lacks expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue his work as a commercial pilot has national importance
the Petitioner has not provided an explanation of how his employment as a single pilot would impact pilot shortages in the airline industry

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor
did not provide insight as to how the Petitioner's work accomplishments constitute achievements or contributions to the industry or field

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and, thus, of a labor certification

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    did not provide insight as to how the Petitioner's work accomplishments constitute achievements or contributions to the industry or field
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    did not specify whether the Petitioner worked full-time or part-time during claimed periods of employment
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    does not have a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his profession
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor... has national importance
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    reiterates economic impact claims concerning his proposed endeavor that are not substantiated by probative evidence
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
  • Letters conclusory · p2letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p2letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
755coded 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

Denial rests on two largely separate grounds presented together: (1) failure to qualify for the underlying exceptional-ability EB-2 classification, and (2) an adopted, only briefly explained finding that the Dhanasar three prongs were independently unmet. The AAO uses the adopt-and-affirm mechanism (Matter of Burbano) rather than conducting fresh prong-by-prong analysis, and faults the Petitioner's appeal brief for failing to identify specific legal or factual errors as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v). A footnote notes the pilot-shortage argument was unsupported because Petitioner did not explain how his individual employment would affect industry-wide shortages.

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. 204.5(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Chen v. INS
  • Matter of Ho
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles