dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Mechanic

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 09, 2024 In Re: 31282117 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 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. See id.; 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(5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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 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. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
As 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). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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 offer and thus of a labor certification. Id. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
noncitizen 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 Petitioner intends to work as an aircraft mechanic repairing mechanical problems in aircrafts so 
airlines can maintain strict flight schedules and deliveries. He will use his experience in aircraft 
maintenance "to help small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States improve operations and 
achieve better productivity, generating revenues within the country." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) regarding the proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner submitted his resume, a professional plan, an expert opinion letter, and reference letters, 
among other documents. The Director determined that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit 
and that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. However, the Director 
concluded that Petitioner had not established the national importance of the endeavor, the first prong 
in the Dhanasar analysis, because he had not shown how his endeavor would have a national impact. 
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 that there is a "rising affluence of air travel" and there has been an "increase in aviation 
infrastructure driving the growth of aviation industry," the matter here is not whether the aviation 
industry is nationally important and poised for growth. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of providing aviation mechanical services to an 
aircraft company. The Petitioner relies on the importance of the aviation industry in general rather 
than establishing the national importance of his endeavor as an aviation mechanic. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses his "expertise" and "specializations in Line Maintenance" and 
emphasizes that "his work extends beyond that of an ordinary aircraft mechanic." 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. Similarly, the Petitioner also argues the submission of the many reference 
letters details his exceptional skills. Although the letters discuss the Petitioner's particular services 
with clients and colleagues, including working on a training program and his specific mechanical 
skills, the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to specific 
services. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate more 
to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
Further, the Petitioner presented a letter from Ph.D., Associate Chair, Aerospace 
Department,! Iwho found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance. The letter discusses the importance of improving the production processes and 
2 
optimizing current resources of U.S. aircraft compames, rather than focusing on the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. In addition, the letter does not explain 
how the Petitioner's particular services would have broader implications for our country. Further, 
similar to the above, this letter emphasizes the Petitioner's knowledge and certifications in the aviation 
industry relating 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. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown the broader impact of the proposed endeavor. 
Another way to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement it to look at evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 
889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his services would largely influence the aviation 
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 Petitioner explained that he will train aircraft mechanics, but the 
record does not show how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the prospective aviation company 
or other mechanics that he trains, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how the aircraft mechanic position has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. While 
the Petitioner makes general claims regarding his expertise "which allows aircrafts to transport goods 
and people," the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed 
endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. Without such evidence, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his 
services or position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
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 
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, as well 
as a review of the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying immigrant classification. 1 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
1 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
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. 
4