dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 9, 2024 In Re: 29022396 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanical maintenance specialist, seeks classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. See 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. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner further determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining 
issues. 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). 
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. 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, stated that his proposed endeavor was to "continue 
delivering benefits to the aviation industry via his endeavor in the area of Aircraft Mechanical 
Maintenance in the [United States]," specifically through a full-time position as an aircraft 
maintenance specialist with an aircraft maintenance provider, T-A-A-, Inc, based in Florida. The 
Petitioner indicated his work would be vital to the public safety because of the technical scrutiny and 
attention he would provide to commercial and private planes serviced by T-A-A-, Inc. The Petitioner 
emphasized his 23 years of experience and knowledge in the field of aircraft maintenance and how he 
would use this in the "training of new technical professionals for improvement of the practice on the 
whole" and bringing "optimal results to any aviation company that seeks [his] contracted services." 
The Petitioner further explained that the lack of availability of qualified aircraft maintenance 
professionals in the United States and how this shortage became even more critical following the 
COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the Petitioner stated that the technical and mechanical support he 
would provide "lends to a robust aviation industry facilitates international trade and 
tourism .. .important to the sustainability and creation of American transportation and hospitality jobs, 
fostering U.S. economic stimulus." 
The Petitioner asserted his proposed endeavor would impact the United States through his 
"improvement of validation testing procedures" and the "development of new and improved designs 
for aircraft design procedures." He stated he would train and guide a new generation of aircraft 
mechanics, contribute to U.S. gross domestic product, and generate tax revenue. The Petitioner 
pointed to a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) report discussing the "vital importance of 
Aviation Maintenance Technician[s] as a support element for the entire air carrier industry" as a "first 
line of defense." The Petitioner further submitted an article addressing "National Aviation 
Maintenance Technician Day," announced by NASA, reflecting the "respect and seriousness to which 
[ aviation maintenance technicians] approach their work because it can literally mean the difference 
between life and death." The Petitioner also emphasized statements from the president indicating that 
the United States would "continue to prioritize offering the next generation of technicians, mechanics, 
and engineers every opportunity to succeed and preserve our country's status as the world's leader in 
aviation technology and industry." The Petitioner asserted that the statements from the president, 
NASA, and the FAA clearly highlight the "substantial merit and national importance of the [the 
Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating the Petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that his endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director indicated the 
provided evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, his work as an aircraft 
mechanical maintenance specialist, would have national importance. The Director determined the 
provided evidence did not demonstrate that the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
have substantial positive economic effects. As such, the Director requested the Petitioner submit a 
detailed description of the proposed endeavor, why it is of national importance, and documentary 
evidence supporting its national importance. The Director further indicated the Petitioner should 
provide evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as documentation to 
substantiate how it would have national or global implications in the field, have significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare 
or cultural or artistic enrichment, or impact a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an additional personal statement discussing why his proposed 
endeavor would be of national importance. He indicated that his work as an aircraft maintenance 
specialist would "improve [the] U.S. Aviation Industry effectively and to provide U.S. citizens and 
residents with safe and practical solutions to travel nationally or internationally" through his 
"troubleshooting, diagnosing, and replacements of the aircraft." The Petitioner stated that he would 
provide "mission-critical services to various industries, including those operating in transportation, 
tourism, healthcare, and more" and that he would "contribute to the recruitment and selection 
processes of technicians in the U.S. with a new approach that looks beyond the candidate's technical 
competencies and focuses on differentiating personal skills." The Petitioner emphasized that aircraft 
maintenance specialists "help keep the economy moving by facilitating the transportation of goods 
and people and play a crucial role in national defense by ensuring that military aircraft are in good 
working order," noting that they are "not only important to the U.S. economy but also to national 
security." The Petitioner further pointed to a FAA's "NextGen program" aiming to modernize US air 
traffic control and travel and indicated that it will require newly skilled aircraft maintenance 
specialists, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act, noting that these professionals play a key role in 
ensuring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in air travel. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor has the significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers and have other substantial economic benefits. He again highlighted the FAA's NextGen 
program and claimed it would create new jobs for aircraft maintenance specialists. The Petitioner 
stated that there is a shortage of aircraft maintenance specialists in the United States and asserted that 
the U.S. government and industry organizations are taking steps to encourage more individuals to enter 
the field, notably through the FAA forecast, the aviation maintenance training program, and the 
workforce development for careers in the aerospace and aviation industry grant. The Petitioner 
I 
further 
I 
emphasized an expert opinion letter he submitted from Professor.__ _____ _. at IIwho opined that the Petitioner is "a respected leader among his contemporaries with the 
field of aviation mechanics," has "in-depth experience in leadership positions," and "his work is in 
demand and has national importance within the field of aviation." Professor! Ialso discussed 
the size of the aviation industry noting that it employs 288,000 maintenance and manufacturing 
professionals and produces more than $52 billion in economic activity. He asserted that the United 
States would greatly benefit from the Petitioner's "extensive experience" and "expertise" in aviation 
maintenance. 
3 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
had substantial merit. However, the Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor was of national importance. More specifically, the Director indicated that the 
evidence did not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would result in substantial positive 
economic effects or extend beyond the local area, company, or its clientele and impact the field more 
broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director erred in concluding that his proposed endeavor was 
not of national importance, asserting that his work as an aircraft mechanical specialist would be 
essential to the safety of air travel. The Petitioner points to his personal statement and states that this 
reflects the demand for qualified professionals in his field and the shortage of qualified workers. The 
Petitioner again emphasizes U.S. government initiatives he claims relate to the proposed endeavor, 
including the FAA Reauthorization Act, FAA N extGen program, and the Inflation Reduction Act 
promoting the importance of aircraft mechanics on air travel safety, modernization, and the use of 
alternative fuels, respectively. The Petitioner contends his proposed endeavor would have substantial 
economic effects and he highlights U.S. government initiatives to encourage individuals to enter the 
aircraft maintenance field due to a national shortage, and his ability to address this shortage. In 
addition, the Petitioner asserts the Director ignored the expert opinion letter it submitted in response 
to the RFE from Professor I land states it demonstrates the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
we farther 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 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
As a preliminary matter, in discussing the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, 
he and the expert opinion from Professorl Iregularly emphasize his "extensive experience" and 
"expertise" in providing aircraft maintenance and repair. However, the Petitioner's experience and 
knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to demonstrating national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor but is only probative to whether he is well positioned to advance the endeavor 
under the second prong of Dhanasar. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 892-93. Therefore, 
we do not find the emphasis on his skills and experience on appeal convincing in establishing the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts broad impacts his proposed endeavor would have on the aviation 
industry and the United States that are left unsupported. As noted, the Petitioner states that he would 
accept a position in the United States to work a foll-time position as an aircraft maintenance specialist 
sed in Florida. Even if we accept that the Petitioner's contention that there is a shortage of aircraft 
4 
maintenance and repair professionals in the United States, it is not clear how him filling one of these 
positions in the United States would have a national impact on this shortage. The Petitioner also 
asserted that aviation maintenance professionals have a national impact on international trade and 
tourism, hospitality, the economy, and the safety of the American public in air travel. Again, although 
aircraft maintenance professionals as a group may indeed have an impact on things such as the national 
economy or public safety, the focus here is on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and its 
potential prospective impact, namely his proposed work as an aircraft maintenance specialist with T­
A-A-. Given this, the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported that his work would have a national 
impact on U.S. trade and tourism, hospitality, economy, and the safety of the American public in air 
travel, as claimed. 
Likewise, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor would impact national security, but he 
has provided little evidence to support that his specific work in the United States would be in this field 
and have a national impact on U.S. national security. The Petitioner also discusses how is proposed 
endeavor would lead to new and improved designs and procedures, as well as training a new generation 
of aircraft maintenance professionals and formulating a new process for selecting these professionals. 
Yet again, the Petitioner provides few specifics or supporting documentation to substantiate that his 
proposed work as an aircraft maintenance specialist with one aircraft maintenance company would 
have a national impact on the way aircraft maintenance professionals are trained or selected. The 
Petitioner also does not describe the new and improved designs and procedures that would result from 
his work or how they would have an asserted national impact. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. 
As discussed, the Petitioner farther points to several U.S. government initiatives asserting that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective impact on them, including the FAA 
Reauthorization Act, the FAA N extGen program, and the Inflation Reduction Act, each respectively 
promoting the importance of aircraft mechanics on air travel safety, modernization, and the use of 
alternative faels. However, again, the Petitioner does not specify and support how his work as an 
aircraft maintenance specialist would have a national impact on the safety of air travel, the 
modernization and innovation of the industry, or on the use of alternative fuels in air travel. According 
to the Petitioner's assertions, it appears that any individual working in any industry with some impact 
on the national interest would qualify, however as noted, our focus is not on the industry, but the 
potential prospective impact national impact of the specific proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently substantiated that his specifically proposed endeavor would have a national impact 
on air travel safety, modernization, and the use of alternative faels, or other similar U.S. government 
initiatives to promote and advance aircraft maintenance. Id. 
The Petitioner farther contends that his proposed endeavor would have a substantial positive economic 
impact. The Petitioner's focus again is on the whole industry, including the contribution of all aircraft 
maintenance professionals on the U.S. economy, the FAA's NexGen program to create jobs for aircraft 
maintenance personnel, the need to for these professionals in the United States, and industry initiatives 
to deal with his demand. However, the Petitioner's assertions to not clarify how his employment in 
the United States as an aircraft maintenance specialist for one company would have a national impact 
on the industry or impact the economy on a national scale. It is not clear based on the Petitioner's 
assertions or the submitted evidence how his proposed endeavor would impact an industry he states 
accounts for 288,000 maintenance and manufacturing professionals and more than $52 billion in 
5 
economic activity. As such, the Petitioner has provided little evidence to establish that his proposed 
endeavor would have a substantial positive economic impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director ignored the provided expert opm10n from 
Professor I I discussing the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor. First, we 
disagree that the Director did not consider the expert opinion, as it was specifically discussed in the 
denial decision. Further, the expert opinion merely reiterates the Petitioner's assertions, noting the 
shortages in aircraft maintenance professionals in the United States and his skills, experience, and 
expertise. Again, as previously indicated, the Petitioner's skills and experience are not relevant to 
demonstrating the prospective national impact of his work. In addition, the expert opinion only 
discusses the aircraft maintenance and aviation industries generally but provides little basis to establish 
that the Petitioner's employment as an aircraft maintenance specialist for one aircraft maintenance 
company would have a national impact on shortages of workers in this industry. We may, in our 
discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other 
sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight 
to that evidence. Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor such that they rise to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar 
we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. As noted by the Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his position as an aircraft maintenance specialist. As such, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have a broad influence 
commensurate with national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6