dismissedSEP232024_07B52032024-09-23 · 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, an airline pilot and CEO of a Slovakia-based pilot training company, sought to open a U.S. branch of the company to teach and train pilots.
Field: aviation / pilot training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found threshold EB-2 classification not met, but AAO declined to reach this issue since prong 1 failure was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“The Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics and revenue would have impact beyond his business's area of intended operations”
“The Petitioner also has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage of airline pilots as claimed”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“While we acknowledge the importance of the field of aviation, the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
1,358coded 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 explicitly declined to reach threshold EB-2 classification issue or prongs 2/3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not making advisory findings once prong 1 was dispositive.
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(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers