Published AAO appeal decisions

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the appeal was previously summarily dismissed along with earlier motions. On a second combined motion, the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider because no new facts, brief, evidence, or legal error were shown. No criteria were decided.

An airline pilot sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver to work as a pilot and ground instructor. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that his proposed endeavor addressing pilot shortage had substantial merit or national importance; support letters remained too vague about prospective impact.

An aviation company petitioned for a national interest waiver to employ a copilot with over twenty years of airline experience. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance because it would benefit only one individual with no broader impact on the aviation industry or economy.

A pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

A motorcycle mechanic and instructor sought an EB-2 national interest waiver for his own business. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding he did not meet the underlying EB-2 exceptional ability requirement; therefore it did not reach the Dhanasar waiver prongs.

Petitioner seeks NIW as advanced degree professional. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience in specialty as required for underlying EB-2 classification; NIW eligibility not reached.

A commercial airline pilot and captain with advanced qualifications proposed pilot and flight instructor work and aviation safety consultancy. The AAO held his expertise and prior success, while relevant to positioning under the second prong, do not establish national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, which lacks demonstrated broader implications for the aviation industry.

Pilot with advanced degree seeks EB-2 classification with national interest waiver. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate that proposed aviation safety and survival training endeavor has national importance beyond immediate clientele, focusing on specific endeavor rather than industry importance.

Rope access specialist sought EB-2 national interest waiver. AAO held endeavor lacks national importance because general industry benefits do not demonstrate prospective impact commensurate with national scope. Appeal dismissed without reaching second and third Dhanasar prongs.

Truck and heavy machinery mechanic sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only one of four claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

Petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied petition; AAO remanded matter to director for full consideration of entire record including claims and evidence submitted with appeal. No analysis of specific criteria provided.

Pilot seeking NIW to provide aviation instruction services. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the proposed endeavor lacks national importance under Dhanasar because instruction would not impact the field more broadly and occupational shortages are addressed through labor certification.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

A self-petitioner sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The service center denied it as not well positioned, then dismissed a combined motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not challenge the finding that the motion stated no new facts, so the issue was waived.