NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP232025_02B52032025-09-23 · appeal

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 Beneficiary proposed to continue working for the Petitioner, a private airline, as an assistant director of operations and pilot, handling FAA/DOT/TSA regulatory compliance, safety and training programs for staff pilots, and flying midsize business aircraft.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding that the Beneficiary met three of six exceptional-ability criteria, concluding only the 10-years-experience and license criteria were met, and that the totality of evidence (certificates, salary, reference letters) did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would reach beyond the company's internal operations and customers to impact the field more broadly”
“the Petitioner's reliance on evidence of a shortage of airline pilots in the U.S. to show the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is misplaced”
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence showing the potential benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Beneficiary's specific work”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“it does not establish that by holding those positions and performing his duties he enjoyed a record of success, or attained a level of expertise”
“possessing the minimum qualifications and necessary licenses or certifications to perform a certain occupation is not sufficient to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not established that any of these latu sensu or specialization certificates relate to his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited
  • certification membership · credited
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters do not identify contributions, accomplishments, knowledge, or skills possessed by the Beneficiary which mark him as exceptional among others in his field”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that this level of remuneration demonstrates exceptional ability in the Beneficiary's field”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • motion resubmission · ignored
    “we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 first withdrew SCOPS' underlying exceptional-ability classification finding (concluding only 2 of 6 criteria, not 3, were met), which alone would be dispositive, but nonetheless proceeded through a full final merits determination and Dhanasar prongs 1-2 analysis, expressly declining to reach prong 3 as unnecessary.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer