dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 03, 2024 In Re: 34286907 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft maintenance consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-
2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 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 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once 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 (USCTS) may, as a 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 Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of 
substantial merit, namely business. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance. 
The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor in the United States was to work as an aircraft 
maintenance consultant, providing services including aircraft maintenance management and 
monitoring, aircraft pre-purchase monitoring and management, aircraft export and import services, 
and technical maintenance control. The Petitioner explained the asserted national importance of his 
proposed endeavor as follows: 
The establishment of [the Petitioner's consulting company] goes beyond just a local 
business venture; it has national and global ramifications. As discussed earlier, the 
aviation industry, with its extensive reach and influence, is a vital component of the 
U.S. economy. My services will address critical aspects of this industry, such as safety, 
maintenance efficiency, and operational continuity. By ensuring that aircraft are well­
maintained, compliant with safety standards, and operate reliably, the proposal 
contributes to safer and more efficient air travel not only within the United States but 
also for global flights that transit through U.S. airspace. Furthermore, the U.S. is a 
significant player in the international aviation market, and the success of a U.S.-based 
aviation consulting company can set a high standard for global aviation services, 
influencing best practices and safety measures worldwide. 
The Petitioner further indicated that his proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, stating there was a demand in the United States for skilled professionals in aircraft 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
maintenance, technical inspections, logistics, and support services and that he would "directly employ 
a considerable number of U.S. workers, both in highly specialized roles and support functions." In 
addition, the Petitioner asserted that his proposed services would broadly enhance societal welfare due 
to his focus on safety, maintenance quality, and operational efficiency which would safeguard aircraft 
from accidents, reduce aircraft downtimes, and optimize maintenance processes, benefiting "various 
sectors of society, including logistics, tourism, and trade." The Petitioner also emphasized that his 
proposed endeavor would impact U.S. government initiatives identified as having national importance, 
namely the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other government entities that "have a strong 
vested interest in ensuring the highest standards of aviation safety and reliability." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) asking for more clarification on the 
substantive nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner emphasized the crucial role 
that air transport industry plays in economic development and creating direct and indirect jobs, such 
as in tourism and local business. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's proposed services are 
aligned with the anticipated growth of the air transport industry "positioning his consultancy to play a 
pivotal role in addressing some of the critical challenges facing the sector." The Petitioner further 
asserted that his services would streamline complex processes involving the international trade of 
aircraft, allowing aviation fleets to expand their fleets and enter new markets more efficiently. He 
also pointed to a submitted reference letter provided by a regional sales director from a company based 
in Florida providing services related to the import and export of aircraft. In this letter, the Petitioner's 
colleague attested to the Petitioner's "invaluable knowledge and experience in the global aviation 
market, particularly in maintaining and operating executive aircraft and navigating complex processes 
involved in their export and import." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner again contended that his proposed endeavor would broadly enhance 
societal welfare, highlighting its contribution to sustainable development through a reduction in air 
travel's environmental footprint and consumer welfare by promoting more air efficient air travel, and 
in tum, an increase in travel and tourism activities. The Petitioner also indicated that his proposed 
endeavor would impact national government initiatives including the objectives of the National Center 
for the Advancement of Aviation Act of 2021, stating that his consulting business would "aid the 
professional development of educators and enhance the quality of education in aviation and aerospace" 
benefiting from "the real-world applications and innovations stemming from [the Petitioner's] work." 
The Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor reasoning that the importance of the aviation field alone did not demonstrate the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the assertions 
submitted in response to the RFE and contends that the Director erred in determining that his proposed 
endeavor would not have national importance. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
3 
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. 
First, on appeal, the Petitioner points to reference letter provided from the regional sales director at an 
aircraft import and export company and asserts this reflects his "invaluable knowledge and experience 
in the global aviation market" and the "crucial role" he played in the exportation of aircraft to the 
United States. While it is true that a petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions 
are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, the second prong does not evaluate the prospective 
impact of an endeavor, but instead "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. As such, while a Petitioner's background may be helpful in describing the nature of 
their field and prior work, it is not sufficient to establish the national importance of their proposed 
endeavor. Likewise, the Petitioner's reliance on his prior projects does not establish the broader 
implications of his proposed endeavor as he has not shown how these projects resulted ( or could result) 
in broader implications to the field beyond the benefits realized by his former employers and 
customers. Regardless, even when considered, the reference letter stressed by the Petitioner discusses 
the Petitioner's assistance the refurbishment and import of one aircraft, leaving question as to its 
probative value in demonstrating his asserted national impact on the large U.S. aviation industry. 
The Petitioner also provided several generic and unsupported statements specific to the asserted 
prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor. For instance, the Petitioner claimed that his 
consulting business would have a national impact on aviation safety and compliance, lead to "positive 
and transformative changes," enhance operational safety standards "globally," and "revolutionize 
maintenance strategies." Likewise, he stated that his consulting services in the aviation industry would 
reduce aircraft downtimes, allow aviation companies to expand their fleets and enter new markets 
more efficiently, among other several broad assertions. However, the Petitioner provides little detail 
as to how his consulting services would impact the U.S. aviation industry on a national level, including 
the safety and compliance procedures he would change, the "transformative changes" that he would 
effectuate, the ways in which he would enhance operational safety standards "globally," or how he 
would "revolutionize maintenance strategies" in the aviation industry. Similarly, the Petitioner does 
not sufficiently explain or document how his services would have a prospective national impact on 
the downtime of aircraft or allow aircraft companies expand their fleets on a national level in what is 
undoubtedly a massive industry. In fact, as discussed, the Petitioner has only provided evidence 
suggesting his work in maintaining and importing one aircraft to the United States. The Petitioner 
does not sufficiently detail and document how his work in aircraft maintenance and safety would be 
materially different from any other similar experienced employee working this field, leaving doubt as 
to likelihood of its prospective national impact. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner's intent to implement best practices and innovative solutions in aircraft 
maintenance appear to generally align with FAA safety initiatives and those of National Center for the 
Advancement of Aviation, it does not establish that his work would rise to the level of national 
importance contemplated in Dhanasar. The Petitioner did not show how his proposed services will 
impact the industry beyond the operations of his immediate customers. For example, the Petitioner 
states that his services would "aid the professional development of educators and enhance the quality 
of education in aviation and aerospace" benefiting from "the real-world applications and innovations 
stemming from [the Petitioner's] work." However, the Petitioner provides little indication as to how 
his consulting services would impact aviation education at a national level or what applications or 
4 
innovations would result from his work. In addition, the Petitioner states that his services would have 
a societal impact by reducing the environmental impact of air travel, again a bold, unsupported claim 
in such a large industry. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to 
the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). 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. Dhanasar 
at 893. Here too, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently impact the aviation field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner submitted vague and non-specific business plans 
asserting the business would hire nine employees after the first five years of operation, it did not 
properly substantiate how this would have a national level impact on an industry he states accounts 
for 5% of the U.S. gross domestic product while employing over 10 million American workers. The 
Petitioner has not submitted specific and targeted business plans, but provides generic assertions about 
impacting commercial airlines, logistics, cargo transport, trade, tourism, among other sectors 
impacting by the greater aviation industry, each which could be reasonably deemed separate, and large, 
industries. In addition, the Petitioner provided only two letters from potential clients in Florida that 
do not properly reflect their potential financial impact. 
Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to 
positively impact a local economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective 
impact directly attributable to his proposed work, or established how his endeavor would impact an 
economically depressed area. We acknowledge that the Petitioner contends that there is a shortage 
of qualified aviation maintenance workers similar to him in the aviation industry; however, a shortage 
of workers alone does not establish that a proposed endeavor would likely have a prospective national 
impact. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. A petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
5 
reached"); see also Matter of L-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. 
6