Aviation: aircraft maintenance consulting
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, although it agreed the endeavor has substantial merit, and it reserved the second and third prongs.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
An aircraft maintenance consultant sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver to offer maintenance management, pre-purchase monitoring and import-export services. The Director had already treated him as an individual of exceptional ability, and the AAO accepted that the endeavor has substantial merit. It nonetheless found his claims of industry-wide safety and efficiency gains generic and unsupported, observing that the evidence he provided pointed to work on a single aircraft, and it was not persuaded that a plan to hire nine employees after five years of operation, or letters from two potential clients, showed national-level impact in so large an industry. The appeal was dismissed on the first prong with the others reserved.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached | decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The Director had found the petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, and the AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit as a business, leaving national importance as the issue.
- The petitioner's prior work and a reference letter about one aircraft were relevant to the second prong, and did not show broader implications of his proposed endeavor beyond his former employers and customers.
- His claims about transforming safety and maintenance across the industry were generic and unsupported, with little detail on what practices he would change or how his work would differ from that of other experienced workers.
- The business plans, which projected nine employees after the first five years of operation, and two letters from potential clients did not show how that hiring or any economic effect would be of national importance in an industry of that size.
- A claimed shortage of qualified workers did not by itself establish national importance.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023)
- 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary