dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 10, 2024 In Re: 31650398 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but that he had not established that 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. 
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. 
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. 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 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 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. 2 For the reasons discussed below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he plans to work "as an Aircraft 
Mechanic and Service Technician, providing consulting services through my own firm to private owners, 
maintenance shops, executive airlines, and flight simulator companies." He asserted that his "focus will 
be on working first with services in the field of technical support and maintenance of ATR Series aircraft, 
the whole line of Embraer aircraft," and various helicopters (Leonardo, Airbus, and Sikorsky). The 
Petitioner further stated that his undertaking will involve "aircraft maintenance" and "personnel training 
and enhancement." 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the business plan for his company, 
This business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about the company and its 
services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's 
education and work experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, 
the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company will employ 5 personnel in year one, 8 in 
year two, 10 in year three, 15 in year four, and 16 in year five, but he did not elaborate on these 
projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. Furthermore, 
while his plan offers revenue projections of $925,000 in year one, $1,305,000 in year two, $1,610,000 
in year three, $2,454,000 in year four, and $2,716,000 in year five, these projections are not supported 
by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The record includes information about White House actions to attract STEM talent and to strengthen 
our economy and competitiveness, the value of small business to the U.S. economy, small businesses 
as drivers of the American economy, small business growth under the Biden-Harris Administration, 
and the projected shortage of aircraft maintenance workers in North America. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided articles discussing the White House's American Jobs Plan, the Biden-Harris 
Administration's priorities, President Biden's remarks relating to promoting competition in the 
American economy and helping small businesses, the Federal Government's public-private 
mobilization effort to distribute CARES Act funding, and the White House's American Rescue Plan. 
He also submitted information about the value of air transport in the United States, critical 
infrastructure sectors, the pilot and aviation technician job outlook, flight cancellations and delays 
attributable to an industry-wide shortage of aircraft technicians, and the U.S. aircraft mechanic 
shortage. 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 
We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes his endeavor has substantial 
merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the overall 
importance of U.S. small businesses to our economy, the value of the industry in which the individual 
will work, or whether that industry is facing labor shortages; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The 
Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner offered letters of support from L-A-M-, J-L-F-F-, J-V-S-B-, D-N-, G-M-P-, F-C-V-, C­
S-P-S-, A-H-, A-P-, P-R-A-, and A-P-J- discussing his aircraft maintenance capabilities and 
experience. In addition, he presented a letter from P-B- reflecting interest in his consulting services. 
The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, as well as interest from potential 
customers, 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. 
The Petitioner also provided an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. M-N-C-, Associate Professor of 
Aerospace at in support of his national interest waiver. Dr. M-N­
C- contends that the Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because his generic 
occupation of aircraft mechanic and the aviation industry stand to contribute to our nation's economy 
and national security. Again, the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The advisory opinion does not demonstrate how 
the Petitioner's day-to-day management of his company's operations and performance of aircraft 
maintenance services for clients as contemplated by his proposed endeavor rise to a level of national 
importance. The letter from Dr. M-N-C- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor 
does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed work offers broader implications in his industry or substantial positive economic effects for 
our nation that are indicative of its national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated his undertaking stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company "to impact the industry 
or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also 
concluded the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor offers "substantial positive economic 
effects." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his "proposed endeavor impacts a matter that government entities 
have described as having national importance and is the subject of national initiatives." He points to data 
from the U.S. Small Business Administration indicating that small businesses are drivers of the U.S. 
economy. The Petitioner also cites to information from the White House relating to attracting STEM 
talent and to strengthening our country's economy and competitiveness. In addition, the Petitioner 
references the USCIS Policy Manual update for "National Interest Waivers" from January 2022 
asserting that his proposed endeavor is subject to the "special considerations for endeavors in STEM 
fields." While the policy update that the Petitioner references explains how the Dhanasar framework 
3 
can apply to STEM fields, the Petitioner must still demonstrate that his specific STEM endeavor has 
national importance. 3 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed aviation 
maintenance and consulting work would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national 
importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad 
impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic 
economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer 
broader implications in his industry or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region 
where his company will operate or in other parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner further argues that "there is a shortage of aircraft mechanics in the U.S." and that his 
undertaking will address this shortage through "offering training and upskilling new aviation 
professionals." While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor will serve our country by 
"overcoming the existing shortages of aviation professionals," he has not demonstrated that his 
undertaking stands to impact his field or industry more broadly beyond the trainees associated with his 
particular company and its consulting projects. 4 Moreover, we are not persuaded by the argument that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in his field. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly 
reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed 
by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that his work has national importance because it stands to create 
"direct and indirect jobs for U.S. workers" and offers "benefits to an economically depressed area." 
He claims that his "company will be located in a place with regional demand for its services and in 
areas considered underserved communities, also called opportunity zones." The Petitioner's claim 
that his endeavor is nationally important because his company plans to operate in underserved 
communities is not persuasive. While the Petitioner states that his company "will be headquartered in 
I I Florida, with an expansion plan to Central Florida I I area)," he has not specifically 
identified a physical location for his proposed business. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown 
that his business will operate in an opportunity zone. Nor does the evidence support the Petitioner's 
claim that his undertaking "stands to impact the regional and national population at a level consistent 
with having national importance." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 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 
3 "With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
4 Likewise, 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. Id. at 893. 
4 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide aircraft maintenance and consulting services to 
his company's future clients, he ha s not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 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. Id. at 893. Here, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his company and its clientele to impact his field, the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or business activity. 
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. In addition, regarding his eligibility under 
Dhanasar's third prong, the Petitioner's appeal brief does not offer specific arguments contesting the 
Director's determination on this issue. Accordingly, we deem this ground to be waived. An issue not 
raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing 
Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and third prongs 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. 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. 
5