dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 33089922 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this 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 or that a waiver of the required job offer and 
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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. 1 Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
1 The plain language of section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) and the governing regulation refer only to exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business, which does not include aviation. As a pilot and aviation instructor, the Petitioner may not be qualified 
for EB-2 classification , because he has not established that aviation is a science, art, or business-related field, as required 
by the statute. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (standing for the proposition that a petitioner must support 
their assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence). However, because the Petitioner has not been put on 
notice of the deficiency in the record of proceedings, we will not dismiss the appeal on this basis. 
2 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion, 3 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. at 889. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed this petition on February 10, 2023. After analyzing the initial evidence, the 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on May 31, 2023, noting the deficiencies in the record, 
to which the Petitioner timely responded. The Director denied the petition concluding the Petitioner 
did not establish that he is eligible for EB-2 classification, as an individual of exceptional ability in 
the sciences, arts, or business.4 In addition, the Director determined his proposed endeavor did not 
meet any of the three Dhanasar prongs to establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Because a petitioner must establish that they meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework to 
obtain a national interest waiver, if even one of the prongs is not established, a petitioner is ineligible 
for this waiver. Accordingly, we will analyze the Petitioner's evidence under prong one and, as 
explained below, because he has not established his eligibility under that prong, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). Similarly, we reserve review of the Petitioner's 
evidence and contentions related to his eligibility, as an individual of exceptional ability, for EB-2 
classification. Id. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the 
general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally 
3 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
4 The Petitioner did not claim to qualify for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
2 
involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should 
describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, 
rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. Id. As such, we will first 
identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
In evaluating his proposed endeavor, we consider his statement on appeal, dated March 19, 2024, and 
his "Letter of Intent'' submitted in response to the Director's RFE, dated Febrnary 1, 2023. In the 
former, he explains that he has worked as a pilot and aviation instrnctor manager since 2010. In his 
latter statement, the Petitioner describes his current work as a flight standards manager at I 
where his job title is pilot in command. The Petitioner also provided an undated 
statement with his RFE response, in which he explains that he plans to work as a pilot transporting 
cargo and people, lists various airlines that could serve as his employers in the United States, and 
explains the professional duties and responsibility of his position as a pilot and flight standards 
manager. On appeal, he provides a job offer letter from a company located in 
Florida, for which he "will be responsible for the ground and simulator training for the pilots that want 
to obtain the Airbus A320 type rating and also the [Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airline 
Transport Pilot (ATP)] license that is required to join a US airline." The Petitioner currently has a 
valid ATP license issued by the FAA, which permits him to transport people and cargo. These 
statements indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a pilot and aviation instrnctor 
in the United States. As such, based on the totality of the relevant evidence, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. Because the endeavor has substantial merit, we tum to whether the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has maintained that his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance because of the documented shortage of pilots, which is affecting the airline industry. First, 
we note that shortages of qualified workers in a field are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. Thus, labor shortages, in general, are insufficient to 
establish an endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner provides background information and 
reports, news articles, and a research journal article to emphasize how the pilot shortage is affecting 
public perception of airline safety, airline reliability, and travel and tourism. He also provides evidence 
to show that the Biden Administration awarded close to $3 billion to improve airport infrastructure 
and the overall airline industry after the COVID-19 pandemic. This information establishes the 
importance of the airline industry, and highlights the shortage of pilots, however it does not establish 
the national importance of the work of one individual pilot or aviation instructor. The burden is on 
each petitioner to show that a given proposed endeavor has "sufficiently broad potential implications 
to demonstrate national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2); and 
see Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (standing for the proposition that a petitioner must 
support their assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence). Accordingly, while these 
documents provide context to establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, 
they do not establish its national importance. 
3 
I 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from the Director of Aviation Programs at the 
who opined that the proposed endeavor is of national importance 
for three reasons: 1) it supports government goals related to aviation; 2) the training of new pilots is 
vital to addressing the pilot shortage; and 3) the endeavor will stimulate the economy by increasing 
the capacity for air transportation. These general assertions relate primarily to the national importance 
of the aviation field, but they do not attest to the broad potential implications of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we acknowledged the importance of STEM education, but 
concluded: "While STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, the 
record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in 
activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Id. at 893. Similarly, here, 
the Petitioner's endeavor to work as a pilot and aviation instructor has substantial merit in relation to 
the U.S. aviation field, however, the actual activities he would be engaged in would not impact the 
field of aviation at a level commensurate with national importance. It is not the field or industry but 
the endeavor itself that the individual will carry out that must be shown to be of national importance. 
Therefore, because of these deficiencies, the expert opinion does not help to establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. See Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988) (standing for the proposition that we may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory but, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that opinion); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor extends beyond his job duties because he would 
train and hire new pilots so that his endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers" and contribute "to the cultivation of a skilled workforce essential for sustaining the 
operational integrity of the aviation industry." He asserts the Director overlooked the link between 
training new pilots and Dhanasar 's emphasis on endeavors that have the "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 890. Here, the Petitioner's emphasis on hiring pilots is contrary 
to the duties he describes he would carry out in his personal statements, as well as in the job offer letter 
he provides, which explains he would be hired as an aviation instructor, and not in a hiring capacity. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the proposition that any 
inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to reevaluation of the remaining evidence offered 
in support of the visa petition). Arguably, while the training of new pilots would lead to an airline's 
ability to hire them, that link is too tenuous to support the Petitioner's assertion that he would be 
engaged in hiring pilots at a level that would reduce the pilot shortage, and thus have "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890; see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that the number of pilots he would 
train would lead to enough new pilots to bolster his claim of sustaining the "operational integrity of 
the aviation industry." See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner further contends that his proposed endeavor will "foster economic productivity and 
societal well-being by bolstering the efficiency and reliability of air travel," and support the 
"operational efficiency and global competitiveness of U.S. airlines," and that this means his endeavor 
has positive national and global implications. He also asserts that his endeavor will have broad social 
welfare implications because it addresses the pilot shortage and enhances public perception of airline 
safety and confidence in our air travel, which improves the U.S.'s national security. As stated above, 
4 
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." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner's 
assertions rely on the importance of the aviation industry or field rather than demonstrating the national 
importance of his pilot and instructor services and he does not provide any evidence to establish how 
his endeavor will promote economic productivity. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. 
For example, the Petitioner does not provide specific evidence to establish his work as a pilot and 
instructor would have an economic impact, create jobs, or that the benefits to his employer or the 
regional economy resulting would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890; see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to the Petitioner's work, the record does not show that benefits to his employer or the 
regional economy to support his claims. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Finally, the Petitioner emphasizes that his "extensive experience as an FAA licensed [ATP], coupled 
with his roles as a Flight Standard and Training Manager, underscores his capacity to contribute." 
However, the Petitioner's work experience and qualifications to be a pilot and aviation instructor in 
the United States are not relevant to our first prong analysis, but instead are considered as part of our 
second prong analysis where we look to see if a petitioner has established, they are well-positioned to 
carry out their endeavor, and consider factors such as their "education, skills, knowledge and record 
of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other 
relevant entities or individuals." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that being an aviation instructor would support the pipeline 
of new pilots. However, this role, while important, does not rise to the level of national importance 
as contemplated in Dhanasar. Individual pilots who he might train would certainly benefit from his 
services, however, the effects of this training are not sufficiently broad to establish his role's national 
importance. As stated above, 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, here, the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond potential students or his employers to impact the field of aviation 
or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework because he has not established its national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5