dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aeronautical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2024 In Re: 28963551 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an ad vanced degree, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a 
master' s degree. [If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must 
a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. (delete if doctorate not an issue)] 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, based upon his degree in aeronautical engineering and 
evidence of more than five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate work in this field. Thus the sole 
issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner merits a national interest waiver of the EB-2 classification's 
job offer requirement as a matter of discretion. We agree with the Director's conclusion that he does 
not. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner is an aeronautical engineer who initially proposed "to offer [his] expertise to advise 
American and U.S.-based aviation manufacturers on how to successfully grow, all while following 
strict aircraft maintenance and safety rules." He clarified in his initial statement that he intended to 
pursue this endeavor through his "continued functions" at his then and current employer in the U.S., a 
foreign-based manufacturer of executive aircraft. However, when the Petitioner submitted his 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he submitted his plans for a new proposed 
endeavor: leading and managing, as founder and CEO, a company in the United States which would 
provide aircraft maintenance management, inspection, and valuation services. 
The purpose of an RFE is to notify a petitioner of deficiencies in the evidence initially submitted, and 
to allow for a limited period for response and submission of additional evidence. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(8) and (11 ). Here, the Petitioner's initial description of his proposed endeavor 
did not include plans to form his own company as an entrepreneur and manage that company as its 
CEO. The Petitioner has not shown that working for a company to advise on its aviation products, 
their marketing, and aircraft maintenance and safety rules, and forming and managing his own 
company are the same endeavor. We conclude that the RFE response presented a new set of facts 
regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. As a petitioner's proposed endeavor forms the core of 
our analysis under the Dhanasar framework, it is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an 
apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). 
1 See also Poursina v. USCJS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionmy in nature). 
2 
In addition, we note that the Petitioner's company was formed more than four months after the filing 
of his petition, and the business plan for this company is dated more than two years after the petition 
was filed. A petitioner must meet eligibility requirements for the requested benefit at the time of filing 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform 
services as a CEO for this entity, formed after the filing date, cannot retroactively establish eligibility. 
For both of the reasons given above, we will not consider the Petitioner's newly proposed endeavor in 
our decision regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver, but focus on his originally proposed 
endeavor. 
C. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Here, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. We agree 
that the evidence is sufficient to show the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor in the area of 
business. 
Turning to the national importance requirement, the Petitioner stated that his work for his current 
employer helped it to gain further ground in the U.S. market, thus producing economic gains for the 
State of Florida, where its U.S. headquarters are located, as well as at the national level. He provided 
materials noting that his employer is the third-largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, as well as 
articles about its economic impact in Florida. In addition, a letter from the company stated that the 
Petitioner's position as a marketing analyst was an "essential component of our product strategy 
department," and that his contributions had improved "the company's position and competitive market 
standing." 
In evaluating the national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor, we look for broader 
implications in the field or industry. An endeavor may be of national importance if it has substantial 
positive economic effects, such as a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 889-890. Here, although the evidence indicates that the 
Petitioner's employer has made a substantial positive economic impact in Florida through job creation, 
it does not establish that the implications of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as one 
employee of this company extends beyond the company itself to the broader industry or field. His 
work may allow his employer to better compete in a competitive market, but he has not shown that 
this would directly result in an overall net economic gain at a broader level, or a that his specific work 
would result in a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, even at a local level. 
On appeal, the Petitioner mainly relies upon his proposed work in leading his company to argue for 
the national importance of his endeavor.2 He first asserts that this work would extend beyond 
2 The Petitioner's appellate brief devotes several pages to arguments concerning the auto industry, and also makes several 
3 
individual employers to indirectly benefit the entire aviation industry, in that he would be improving 
maintenance practices and operations. We first note that this argument does not address the 
deficiencies in his initial proposed endeavor regarding national importance, as explained above. But 
we also note that, even ifwe were to consider his second proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's statement 
and business plan do not describe how he would improve upon existing aircraft maintenance practices 
and operations, or how any such improvements would be dispersed to impact the broader aviation 
maintenance industry. While the Petitioner's appeal brief includes mentions of training mechanics, 
technicians, and others in the industry, the business plan lacks mention of training programs that would 
extend beyond his own company. 
The Petitioner also states on appeal that he has collected additional letters of support from peers, 
professional organizations, and government entities in response to the Director's decision, but no such 
evidence was submitted with his brief. Also, while the Director discussed letters of support that were 
submitted in the context of the national importance of the proposed endeavor, these letters primarily 
focus on the Petitioner's work experience and career achievements, factors that are weighed under the 
second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Any such additional letters would be of little 
evidentiary value in demonstrating the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's initial proposal, to work for his current employer in the United States, was not 
supported by sufficient evidence of its national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, and his abandonment of this proposed endeavor in favor of a new one when 
responding to the Director's RFE was an impermissible material change to the petition. We therefore 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he has not satisfied the first prong. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but he has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Since 
the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
points about the benefits of his work as a pilot and as a business consultant. As these points have no relation to either of 
his proposed endeavors, we consider these to be editing errors by the Petitioner's representative and will not consider them 
in our discussion. 
4