dismissedSEP282023_07B52032023-09-28 · 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 pilot and flight instructor, proposed to offer his expertise to pursue positions within the U.S. aviation industry.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the Petitioner has not stated a cognizable endeavor, and his claims that his employment as a pilot and flight instructor will have "ripple effects" on the aviation industry and U.S. economy are insufficient”

“However, as explained by the Director, the importance of an endeavor is determined not by the industry or occupation it involves, but by what its specific impact will be.”

“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”

“It also does not quantify what economic benefits the endeavor will generate, particularly in a depressed area, and so does not show that the endeavor will result in "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“the purpose of the national interest waiver is not to facilitate a petitioner's U.S. job search”
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
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 Director found the Petitioner met prong 2 but not prong 1, an unusual split; AAO agreed with the prong 1 failure and expressly noted that the Petitioner's pilot skills evidence actually related to prong 2, not prong 1, illustrating cross-prong conflation. The AAO also rejected the pilot-shortage argument by noting DOL's labor certification process already addresses worker 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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer