dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Airline Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 22, 2024 In Re: 33970702 
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 an individual of exceptional ability. 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 EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. If 
a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material 
provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the petitioner is 
recognized as having adegree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the 
context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of 
discretion,2 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner qualified for the requested EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, he did not establish eligibility for a national 
interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has 
not established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
A. EB-2 Classification as an Individual of Exceptional Ability 
Although the Petitioner not meeting Dhanasar's first prong is the dispositive issue dismissing appeal, 
we will address the Petitioner's eligibility of for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. After 
reviewing the evidence in the record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated satisfying at least three of 
the six initial evidentiary criteria for being an individual of exceptional ability and is not otherwise 
eligible for the requested benefit. 
The Petitioner claimed he met four of the six categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii): ten 
years of full-time experience in the occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B); a license to practice 
the profession or certification for a particular occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C); membership 
in professional associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E); and recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). The Director 
determined the Petitioner satisfied all four criteria. For the final merits analysis, the Director did not 
provide an explanation for the finding, instead a conclusionary statement that "the [P]etitioner has a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) requires "[e]vidence in the form of letter(s) from current 
or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation for which he or she is being sought." Additionally, such letters "shall include a specific 
description of the duties performed." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(I). Here, the Petitioner provided 
documentation relating to his work as a pilot with three different employers. However, none of the 
evidence, including the employment letters, flight logs, and employment contracts, indicates the 
Petitioner worked on a full-time basis. Moreover, an employment letter from his previous employer 
indicates he worked from October 2013 to August 2016 as a captain but does not indicate the 
Petitioner's job duties. Although the Petitioner also provided his flight logs for that employment to 
show his job duties as a pilot, the flight logs do not specify the duties he performed for the airline or 
that his work was full-time. Without more evidence, we cannot conclude the Petitioner satisfies the 
plain language of the criterion. We withdraw the Director's determination for this criterion. 
Next, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) requires evidence of membership in a professional 
association. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any occupation having 
a minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
and in the Flight Safety Foundation. The record, however, does not show that either the Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association or the Flight Safety Foundation is comprised of individuals who have 
earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, or that it otherwise constitutes a 
professional association. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his membership in a 
professional association under this criterion. We withdraw the Director's determination for this 
criterion. 
Because the Petitioner does not otherwise satisfy at least two of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii), we need not determine whether he satisfies the two additional criteria claimed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (F), in order to satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii). Therefore, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (F). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Since the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the recognition required for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Accordingly, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification 
as an individual of exceptional ability, and we therefore withdraw the Director's determination. 
3 
B. National Interest Waiver 
For the first Dhanasar prong, the Director found that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. The Director further found that while the Petitioner is well-positioned to undertake the 
endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, he did not establish 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 under 
Dhanasar's third prong. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a pilot for a major commercial airline. In 
addition to pilot flying duties, he intends to work in a management pilot position with additional job 
duties in flight safety or pilot instruction. With flight safety, he "would assist, advise[,] and monitor 
operating trends and provide to pilots and airline management the most updated information regarding 
the operation - identifying dangerous trends or practices to enhance flight safety and overall 
operations." He explains that he could also be "an instructor pilot or a check airman, which is an 
examiner authorized by the [Federal Aviation Administration] to perform evaluations in simulators 
and on the flying line to verify that the company pilots in the ranks are performing according the 
[ s ]tandard [ o ]perating [p ]rocedures and therefore enhancing the safety of flight widely." The 
Petitioner indicates that his work will help ease the U.S. shortage of qualified pilots, enhance flight 
safety, and support the economic health of U.S. airlines. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has the potential to "extend beyond a single 
organization and its clients to impact the field more broadly." Therefore, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor is of national importance and did not meet the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Upon de novo review, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong, as discussed 
below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not correctly apply the preponderance of the 
evidence standard when evaluating the evidence. He claims he submitted relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Specifically, he 
references his professional experience, his statements, letters of recommendation from industry 
professionals, and research and articles to show his endeavor is of national importance. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
4 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by apreponderance of evidence. 
Next, the Petitioner stresses his professional knowledge, his more than 25 years of experience in flight 
safety management, and his nearly 20 years as an airline captain to show he "is a unique candidate 
with a distinct record of success, skill[,] and experience that serves the national interest." He points 
to letters of recommendation from industry professionals, including a letter from the Director of 
Emergency Response for a major U.S. airline, to show his distinct record and unique and versatile 
skills would substantially benefit the field of aviation. 
The recommendation letters attest to the Petitioner's technical airline pilot knowledge by describing 
his successful flight safety investigations, his flight operations management experience, and his flight 
instructor training projects. We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided pilot management services 
and was committed to his employers, but the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to have 
a broader impact in his field rising to the level of national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's reliance on his professional knowledge and experience to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His professional knowledge and 
experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here 
is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar ·s first prong. 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. Id. at 889. While the Petitioner's employers and colleagues generally attest to the 
Petitioner's dedication to his work and to improving flight safety and pilot flying skills for his previous 
employers, the content of these letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead 
of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence based on these letters to establish that his proposed job 
duties in a management pilot position for a commercial airline would impact the aviation field more 
broadly, rather than benefiting his prospective employer and its clients. 
Next, the Petitioner contends his proposed endeavor would help mitigate the significant shortage of 
qualified pilots in the United States. In addition to the Petitioner using his flying experience to 
immediately fill a needed pilot position with a commercial airline, he emphasizes that his "extensive 
experience as an instructor can directly address this issue." By training new pilots and advancing the 
skills of existing pilots, his endeavor would have a broader national impact of increasing the number 
of qualified pilots which would help to address the shortage of such professionals. In addition to 
alleviating the shortage of pilots, he claims his endeavor would provide economic benefits to the 
United States by generating revenue in various industries such as tourism and transportation of goods; 
improving aviation operational costs; and generating direct and indirect jobs. The record includes 
articles and industry reports relating to how the shortage of qualified pilots impacts the U.S. economy; 
economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on civil aviation; pilot careers; civil aviation; pilot and 
5 
technician outlook for 2020 to 2039; impact of pilot shortage on regional airline industry; and major 
airlines expanding training centers and eliminating degree requirements for pilots to address pilot 
shortage. 
We recognize the importance of the field of av1at1on and related careers, and the significant 
contributions from immigrants who are pilots in the United States; however, merely working in the 
aviation field as a pilot, pilot instructor, or flight safety advisor for a commercial airline is insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead of focusing on the importance 
of an industry or the need for workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Id. The Petitioner has not established how his proposed endeavor 
would affect national pilot employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with 
national importance. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss how the Petitioner 
working as in a management pilot position for a commercial airline will overcome the shortage of 
pilots and aviation workers in the United States or impact the U.S. economy. Moreover, the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process directly addresses such shortages of 
qualified workers. 
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. Similarly, the 
record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work of instructing pilots, flying aircraft, and 
conducting flight safety for a commercial airline has the potential to substantially benefit the field of 
aviation more broadly, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The 
evidence does not suggest that his work in amanagement pilot position for acommercial airline would 
extend beyond his prospective employer and have a broader impact on the field of aviation. 
Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake 
offers the claimed broader implications for his field or for the U.S. economy. His claims depend on 
numerous factors, and he did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed work 
in a management pilot position for a commercial airline and its impact on his field or the U.S. 
economy. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor. Assertions made without supporting documentation are of limited probative 
value and do not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 
l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. While the Petitioner 
expresses his desire to contribute to the United States and the field of aviation, he has not established 
with specific, probative evidence that his endeavor has the claimed potential to extend beyond his 
prospective employer to impact the field or the U.S. economy. As such, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated by apreponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
6 
Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, since the Petitioner has not established eligibility under 
the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7