dismissedJUL022026_01B52032026-07-02 · 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 petitioner proposed to enhance and promote aviation safety by developing and implementing safety training, inspections, risk identification, and written safety programs, collaborating with U.S.-based aviation enterprises.
Field: aviation safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agree with users that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“the Petitioner did not explain in the record below, or now on appeal, how his aviation methods in, for example, developing and implementing safety inspections and training programs would improve upon those already available and in use in the United States”
“they only provide a general overview of the field and do not discuss the specific nature of the Petitioner's endeavor or the details of his personalized strategies or models that would broadly impact the field”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but whether the specific proposed endeavor has broad enough implications to be considered of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“do not discuss any details relating to the specific endeavor and its impact within the business field of aeronautics”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“only provide a general overview of the field and do not discuss the specific nature of the Petitioner's endeavor”
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
- 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
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
Petitioner raised an unusual procedural argument alleging USCIS abused its discretion by failing to individually address every piece of evidence, citing Buletini v. INS; AAO rejected this, citing Kazemzadeh and Casalena for the proposition that reasoned consideration of evidence in totality suffices.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution