dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Airline Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 28819338 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification, he did not meet his burden to 
demonstrate that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
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. 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as 
an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the remaining 
issue is whether the record establishes that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement "in the national interest" under section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the 
statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
In applying the Dhanasar framework to the facts presented, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor to seek employment as a pilot with a U.S. 
airline company and demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance it. However, the Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the endeavor by showing its 
potential prospective impact, such as by providing evidence that it will have substantial positive 
economic effects, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other broader implications within 
his field. The Director also determined that the record did not demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he generally asserts that the Director applied "novel 
evidentiary requirements" and a stricter standard of proof than that of preponderance of the evidence. 
But he does not elaborate on these claims or point to specific instances where the Director applied an 
incorrect standard or novel requirements. With respect to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
the Petitioner contends the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, suggesting 
that the Director did not properly weigh his previously submitted professional plan and resume, letters 
ofrecommendation, and industry reports and articles regarding the aviation industry. The Petitioner's 
brief emphasizes his qualifications and extensive experience as a pilot, the importance of the aviation 
industry as a driver of the U.S. economy, and the shortage of qualified pilots amidst increasing demand 
for air transportation. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) Goining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
Contrary to the Petitioner's claim on appeal, the record reflects that the Director did not disregard 
evidence relating to his qualifications and extensive experience as a pilot. Rather, the Director 
acknowledged this evidence and correctly noted that it relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. As noted, the Director determined that the Petitioner met the second prong and is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Further, the Director acknowledged and addressed the Petitioner's submission of media and industry 
reports that emphasize the importance of the aviation industry to the U.S. economy, the critical role of 
aviation in tourism and trade, and the pilot shortage facing the industry. These articles provide relevant 
background information and establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed work in the 
aviation industry. However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. In Dhanasar, we 
emphasized that "we look for broader implications" of the specific 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. at 889. 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. 
2 
Here, the Petitioner suggested that by filling an open pilot position, he will help to prevent service 
disruptions, route cancellations, and airline closures that could negatively impact businesses and 
individuals that rely on air transportation. He further claimed his endeavor would "enhance and 
improve the aviation industry in the United States," would result in "ripple effects" on trade, tourism, 
and the U.S. economy, and would address the nationwide shortage of skilled pilots. However, the 
Director determined, and we agree, that he has not substantiated how one pilot will alleviate a national 
labor shortage, trigger substantial positive economic benefits, or otherwise have potential prospective 
impacts at a level commensurate with national importance. While the Petitioner indicates that he may 
secure employment as a flight instructor, which would allow him to train future pilots, he similarly 
did not demonstrate how this work would have national implications within the field. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner's appeal does not sufficiently address or contest the specific 
evidentiary deficiencies the Director found in applying the Dhanasar framework to the facts presented, 
and therefore does not overcome the Director's well-reasoned grounds for denial of the petition. 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. 
3