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, proposed to continue working as a pilot and to use his expertise to train new and current pilots in order to help address a documented pilot shortage.
Field: commercial aviation / piloting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made a determination on exceptional ability despite evidence of five of six regulatory criteria; AAO remands for the Director to make this determination and, if met, conduct a final merits determination.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the reach of his endeavor appears limited to those passengers and students he may have in the future as a pilot or aviation instructor.”
“We note, however, that the labor certification process itself is intended to address labor shortages.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
- awards · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the labor certification process itself is intended to address labor shortages”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
This is a procedural remand rather than a merits denial: the AAO found the Director's decision itself inadequate for review (lacking analysis, conclusory findings) and remanded for a properly reasoned decision on both the underlying exceptional-ability classification and all three Dhanasar prongs, while flagging concerns about prong one's national-importance showing along the way.
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision lacked any analysis or evidentiary discussion, making it unreviewable; AAO remanded rather than ruling on merits, though it flagged that industry-level importance evidence does not establish national importance of the specific endeavor.
Directors must explain reasoning with specific evidence citations; petitioners must tie national-importance evidence to their specific endeavor's scale, not just industry-wide statistics.
vague
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · us_competitiveness
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp