dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Airline Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2023 In Re: 28962727 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline pilot, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
1 The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
Director's decision reflects the Petitioner satisfied all six criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Although the 
Director claims "USCIS will conduct a final merits determination ," the decision does not show the Director actually 
performed a final merits determination, concluded the Petitioner has obtained the required degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business, and determined the Petitioner meets the underlying 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national 
interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand the matter to the Director in order make a determination on the underlying 
immigrant classification. 
2 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). 
• 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. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner briefly indicated he intended to "continue [his] work as an [sic] 
commercial airline pilot." In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner asserted 
the pilot shortage and referenced several articles regarding the occupation outlook. However, the 
record does not show the Petitioner offered a specific, proposed endeavor consistent with Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner did not further elaborate and provide detailed information 
explaining how he intended to pursue his endeavor of working as a commercial pilot. Without this 
specific, proposed endeavor, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the substantial merit and national 
importance. 
Notwithstanding, as it relates to substantial merit, 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. Because the Petitioner did not offer a detailed explanation, the 
Petitioner did not establish how his endeavor falls within any of these areas and thus has substantial 
merit. 
Furthermore, 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. Here, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of working as 
a commercial or airline pilot rather the importance of pilots. In Dhanasar, we 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 economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. We note here the claim of 
a shortage in an occupation does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the 
Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Moreover, 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor 
largely influences the field and rises 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 record does not show through supporting 
documentation how his particular pilot services sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employer, 
to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
2 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his pilot 
position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
3 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