dismissedSEP272022_01B52032022-09-27 · combined · 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 Beneficiary, an aircraft design engineer, proposed to work with the Petitioner (an aircraft marketing company) on converting passenger planes into air ambulances and into freight planes for lease.

Field: aircraft design engineering / aviation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not address how the specific proposedendeavor, working with the Petitioner to convert passenger aircraft to air ambulances”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the overall industry, field, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the proposed endeavor has broader implications beyond the Petitioner's business.”

“the record does not explain the specific positive effects of the proposed endeavor, including whether it will result in employment of U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not address how the specific proposed endeavor...will have the same positive impacts rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these are the Beneficiary's past achievements in aircraft conversion design”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not assert that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

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 decision explicitly notes it is unclear whether the Beneficiary or his current employer controls or owns the design technology underlying his past achievements, undermining the claimed prospective national impact. Although NYSDOT is cited as the vacated prior precedent, the AAO applies Dhanasar throughout, so legacy_nysdot_era is false.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS
Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer