dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aeronautical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 04, 2023 In Re: 28808461 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, 1 the record did not establish that her endeavor would 
have national importance or that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer 
requirement. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa'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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS 
1 The Director's decision states that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional because she has a U.S. 
master's degree. The record does not support this conclusion. However, the Petitioner does have a foreign degree which 
is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, as well as five years of progressive work experience in her specialty. As such, 
she qualifies as an advanced degree professional under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
(1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The sole issue on appeal is whether, using the Dhanasar test, the Petitioner qualifies for a waiver of 
the job offer requirement in the exercise of discretion. The Director concluded that while the Petitioner 
meets the second prong of Dhanasar by being well-positioned to advance her endeavor, she does not 
meet the first or third prongs and so does not qualify for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a brief contending that the Director's decision was an abuse of discretion because 
it did not give due consideration to the evidence or employ the correct evidentiary standards. Upon 
review of the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's denial 
grounds by providing relevant, probative, and credible evidence establishing that her endeavor is more 
likely than not to have an impact rising to the level of national importance. Id. at 889-90; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (describing the Petitioner's burden of proof under the "preponderance 
of the evidence" standard used in these proceedings). 
The first prong of Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, including business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, and education. Id. When considering an endeavor's national 
importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where 
the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. at 889-90. An endeavor 
may have national importance i±: for example, it has national implications within a particular field or 
has significant potential to have a substantial positive economic effect, especially within an 
economically depressed area. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner proposes to work as an aviation consultant in the United States. The Director 
concluded that while this endeavor has substantial merit, the record did not establish its national 
importance, and so the endeavor does not meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of aviation and aviation safety to the United 
States, and states that the Director improperly ignored the petition's documentation regarding the 
aviation industry. However, as noted by the Director, working in an area with substantial merit does 
not mean that one's endeavor will have national importance. In Dhanasar, the noncitizen's work as a 
science teacher was found to have substantial merit but did not qualify him under the first prong 
because the evidence did not show how that work would impact the field of science education more 
broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, while the Petitioner here contends that her work will impact the field 
of aviation, she has not provided any documentation of what that specific impact would be or how it 
would extend beyond her consulting clients. 
We acknowledge the underlying petition's claim that the Petitioner's endeavor will be nationally 
important because she will be employed in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, or 
Mathematics) field. However, "as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor 
2 
has both substantial merit and national importance." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The evidence does not demonstrate national importance here. 
In one of several personal statements, the Petitioner states that her "proposal is to undertake and 
provide a consulting program inside and outside the country, opening new innovation proposals from 
different airports in the country ... " and that she "would like to become part of the team of one of the 
largest aircraft manufacturers in aviation in the United States, such as Boeing ... in order to be a 
consultant to large and medium-sized companies in the United States and throughout America ... " 
She further states that "[i]n the long term, [she] would love to be able to give motivational talks to 
future engineers at universities on airline and aircraft reliability, an impact that will be felt throughout 
the airline industry." 
The purpose of the national interest waiver is not to facilitate a petitioner's U.S. job search. While no 
job offer is required, anyone seeking such a waiver must identify the "specific endeavor" that they 
propose to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.5(D)(l). Here, the Petitioner has not specified whether she will work for airports, Boeing, 
or "large and medium-sized companies," what specific aviation safety or maintenance issues she 
intends to address, or how she will divide her time between these activities and pursuits such as 
motivational speaking. When assessing national importance, we look for an endeavor's broader 
implications. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
documentation establishing what her work will specifically entail, and as such has not demonstrated 
how her employment as an individual consultant will impact the broader field of aviation on a national 
level. 
These concerns also apply to the Petitioner's contentions regarding the economic impact of her 
endeavor. We acknowledge the petition's documentation regarding the economic impact of the 
aviation industry as a whole. However, the record does not quantify or document what economic 
impact would be attributable specifically to the Petitioner's endeavor. The Petitioner therefore has not 
established that her endeavor, in and of itself: has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise generate the kinds of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 889-90. 
Finally, while we acknowledge the many support letters attesting to the Petitioner's work experience 
and skills, this documentation relates to the second Dhanasar prong regarding whether she is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It does not relate to what impact the Petitioner's 
endeavor will have. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that her endeavor 
will have an impact rising to the level of national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs and hereby reserve them. 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 did 
not otherwise meet their burden of proof). However, we note that while the Petitioner has education 
and successful work experience relating to her endeavor, she has no business plan or other specific 
model for her future activities beyond seeking consulting work in her field with an unspecified 
3 
employer. She also has not provided documentation of any progress made towards this goal, such as 
the solicitation of interest from customers, investors, or other interested parties. Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. The provided recommendation letters only speak to the Petitioner's past work in 
Colombia and provide no information about her U.S. endeavor, and the various documents regarding 
U.S. government interest in aviation safety pertain to the field in general, not the Petitioner's endeavor 
in particular. In any future proceedings, the Petitioner must address the issue of whether she is well­
positioned to advance her endeavor under the second Dhanasar prong. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. As such, we conclude 
that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4