dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20140731 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 31, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft pilot, seeks second preference immigrant classification 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 did not 
establish that he is an individual of exceptional ability. The Director also concluded that, because the 
Petitioner did not establish he is an individual of exceptional ability, he is ineligible for a national 
interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section291 oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, wewillsummarilydismissthe appeal. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
The Petitioner filed the appeal on August 21, 2021. The extent of the Petitioner's statement of the 
basis for the appeal is: 
The Petitioner has his [sic] 1-140 petition erroneously denied. The Petitioner is eligible 
for a national interest waiver under INA 203(b )(2)(b ), whereas the endeavor does have 
national importance. The USCIS officers did not objectively evaluate all evidence 
under preponderance of evidence. Instead, they imposed novel standard. As will be 
demonstrated in the Brief of Appeal, the [P]etitioner has demonstrated success in 
similar efforts; as well as his endeavor has the potential of broadly impacting and 
promoting societal welfare. As such, on balance, it would be beneficial to the U.S. to 
waive the requirements of a job offer. 
The Petitioner does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
regarding the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that he is an individual of 
exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Instead, the Petitioner discusses issues not 
addressed in the Director's decision and not part of the denial basis, such as whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance and whether the Petitioner has demonstrated success in similar 
efforts. The Petitioner indicates that he will "submit my brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO 
within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal." However, we havenotreceiveda brief or other statement 
that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's 
decision regarding the conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that he is an individual of 
exceptional ability, other than the general assertion that the Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria 
for the requested benefit. See id. Therefore, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. See id. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2