NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP222023_04B52032023-09-22 · 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 sought to work in the United States as a commercial pilot, also claiming he would train new pilots to help address a nationwide pilot shortage.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director concluded, and the record supported, that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or occupation where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner has not specified how his employment as a pilot, in and of itself, would alleviate a nationwide shortage of such workers.”
“a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing what economic effects would be attributable to his specific endeavor”
“he has not established that endeavor's national importance because he has not provided documentation of its prospective impact on the broader field of aviation beyond his prospective employers and customers”
“The record does not establish how the Petitioner's teaching would impact the U.S. pilot shortage on a level rising to national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing what economic effects would be attributable to his specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “these factors relate to the second Dhanasar prong regarding whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver”
    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
  • 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
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

The AAO explicitly separates industry/occupational shortage arguments from endeavor-specific impact, noting the labor certification process (not NIW) is the proper vehicle to address worker shortages; it also faults the Petitioner for conflating years-of-experience arguments (prong 2 material) with national importance (prong 1).

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
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer