dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aeronautical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13310412 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL.12,2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available . .. to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job off er and thus of a labor 
certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job off er or for the petitioner too btain a labor ce1iification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 8 89. The Petitioner initially provided a statement indicating: 
I intend to continue using my expertiseandknowledge in the field of Aviation by working 
as an Aeronautical Engineer in the United States. I have extensive experience in 
equipment maintenance, repairing, operation monitoring, management regulatozy 
framework, business planning, certification, recruiting, instructing, lecturing, compliance, 
supervision, advisory, aviation consulting, and systems evaluation within the Aviation 
industry. 
My career plan in the United States is to continue working as an Aeronautical Engineer, 
Airworthiness expert, and Consultant, to advise American Avionics companies on how to 
grow successfully while following the rules set forth by the regulation bodies of 1he 
Aviation industry. I intend to continue using my unique expertise and extensive 
knowledge in the field of Aviation, where I can provide expe1t managerial and technical 
services to the United States. I will bring optimal results to any Aviation company or 
regulating body that chooses to hire me in the future. My exceptional skills in Aviation 
prove I am more than qualified to aid the U.S. in an industry, which right now is 
experiencing much backlash and criticism over their inability to keep passengers of 
commercial airline flights safe. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner offered an updated statement claiming: 
I intend to continue using my expertise and knowledge working as an Aeronautical 
Engineer in the aviation industry .... 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
[M]y overall proposed endeavor in the United States is to offer my expertise to advise 
American and U.S. - based companies in the aviation industry on how to grow 
successfully, while following aircraft maintenance and safety rules set forth by both the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the international regulatory agencies. I will 
do this by utilizing my unique expertise and extensive technical knowledge in aircraft 
engineering assembly, maintenance and technology. 
I propose to use my skills and knowledge as an expert in the aviation field to work for 
U.S. companies in need of an improvement in their maintenance practices and operations, 
in order to increase the safety and quality of their aircraft. This will be done by being 
hired as an employee, or providing consulting services. I can work for aircraft 
manufactures or for aircraft operators, in several positions, assessing risk and advising 
with regards to maintenance and regulatory compliance. 
The Petitioner provides another statement on appeal maintaining that he "will also continue to stay up to 
date on the latest field standards, researching the most advanced and innovative aircraft developments, so 
that I am able to advise my clients and served entities on how to maintain the most modem aircraft fleets" 
and "will strengthen the United States' aviation industry, especially by allowing for its market 
competitiveness when confronted with innovative market/product developments, as well as by addressing 
a rising skills gap, which is undermining several economic and social affairs." The Director determined 
that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, and the record supports 
that conclusion. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently shown the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the overall industry, 
field, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the 
Petitioner argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to industry reports and articles, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance of aeronautical engineers or the aviation industry, including maintenance, safety, 
and economic market. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 
proposed endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for ex amp le, 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 economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood 
to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not sufficiently weigh "his credentials, expertise, 
professional accomplishment,""[ e]vidence of [his] work in the field," and "[l]etters ofrecommendations 
from expe1is in the field, which confinn [his] expertise, significant contributions and impmiance in the 
Aeronautical Sector." The Petitioner's experience, abilities,andcontributions in his field, however,relate 
to the second prong oftheDhanasar 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. 
4 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documentingthe "potential prospective impact" ofh is work. While the Petitioner 
proposes "to offer his expertise to advise American and U.S.-based aviation manufacturers on how to 
successfully grow," he has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Instead, as indicated above, the record contains evidence regarding general information relating to the 
overall aviation industry. 
Further, the Petitioner argues the national importance of his current employment wit~._ ___ _. 
.__ ____________ _.~ 4 Specifically, the Petitioner states: 
... I received a competin~ offer to work full time at I I-the U.S. subsidiary of 
I J the company designs, develops, manufacturers, and markets 
aircraft and aviation systems. I joined the company in June of 2019, and I was 
particularly recruited to serve its product strategy department, doing analytical reports 
in competitive intelligence matters . 
. . . I serve as Marketing Analyst III, in which I am responsible for collecting market 
inputs, in the f mm of product feedback and competitive intelligence rep mis .... 
I am also in charge of monitoring the competition, including newly introduced market 
products, and I also work with key stakeholders to figure out how these market 
developments would affect the company's strategy and market dominance/share .... 
. . . I also coordinate and develop the company'...___~-----------' 
which serves the purpose of sharing news and best practices among all company units. 
I also support the company's strategic planning team, for which I offer in-depth 
analyses regarding competitive market metrics, in regard to manufacturing, safety, and 
production procedures .... 
The Petitioner filed his petition in July 2018. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1), (12);MatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec. 45, 49 (Reg'lComm'r 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Regardless, in Dhanasar, we determined 
that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national impmiance because 
they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the record does not show how the 
Petitioner's employment withl I as well as with any of his prior claims of future employment 
with U.S. companies, stands to sufficiently extend beyond his current or prospective employers, to 
impact the aviation industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
4 The Petitioner also submits articles regarding coverage o~n.. __ _. 
5 
for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding anyprojected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Fmiher analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined inDhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of theDhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated that he is eligible 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. 
6