dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aeronautical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 35453992 
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 advanced 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 eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 
in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to the substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to establish a business, (company), which, as outlined in his business plan, is an 
"Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Services firm that provides Aircraft Maintenance 
Management Services, Aircraft Pre-Purchase Evaluation Services, Aircraft Valuation Assessment and 
Inspections Services, Aircraft Heavy Maintenance Oversight Services and Competitive Intelligence 
and Product Strategy Consulting Services planned to be headquartered in Florida with two business 
units in Georgia and North Carolina." 2 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Although the Director found the proposed endeavor did not possess substantial merit, the 
Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the endeavor falls within one or more of the areas 
contemplated by Dhanasar. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends on appeal that he provided documentation that discussed the 
importance of various national and government initiatives, such as the Federal Aviation 
Administration's (FAA) "National Safety Plan" and the "U.S. Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing," 
the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of aviation safety and technological 
innovation, or similarly related subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an 
aeronautical engineer through his company in the I I Florida area, with locations in Georgia 
and North Carolina. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
The Petitioner also contends that his proposed endeavor "addresses the significant labor shortage in 
the aviation maintenance sector, identified by numerous studies as a threat to national security and 
economic stability." However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not 
render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses his "academic background, substantial professional achievements, 
and the clear interest of U.S. organizations" in his endeavor. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, 
skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his company would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 
Id. at 893. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Even though the business plan claims the creation of 71 jobs over 5 
years, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future 
staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the Florida, Georgia, or North Carolina 
regions or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The 
Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant 
population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, 
either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the 
limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer 
substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
3 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
4