dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2024 In Re: 32675605 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a commercial pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 
classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, he did not show that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. 
Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of 
proof and must establish her eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To be 
eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant 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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in holding 
that USCIS ' decision on a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The record reflects that the Petitioner sought EB-2 classification below only as a person of exceptional 
ability, which requires him to first satisfy at least half of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Although the Director found that he met at least three of the six regulatory criteria, the Director 
concluded, upon a final merits assessment, that he did not establish that he has a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of aviation as a commercial airline pilot. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "exceptional ability"); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
https ://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part- f-chapter-2 ( discussing a two-part framework 
consisting of the regulatory criteria and a final merits determination). However, although he did not 
seek classification below as an advanced degree professional, the Director nonetheless concluded that 
the Petitioner is eligible for the classification because his foreign military pilot degree and a subsequent 
master's degree establish that he is a professional holding an advanced degree or the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree with five years of progressive post-degree experience in the specialty. 
Upon de novo review, and as a preliminary matter, the record does not show that the Petitioner has a 
U.S. or foreign equivalent advanced degree, or that he has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree. We thus withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
To establish that the Petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree for EB-2 classification purposes, 
his petition must be accompanied by an official academic record evidencing a U.S. advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). "Advanced degree" means a 
U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at 
least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a 
master's degree. Id. The Petitioner therefore may alternatively present an official academic record 
evidencing a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters 
from current or former employer(s) showing at least five years of progressive post-degree experience 
in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
As evidence of his credentials, the Petitioner submitted a copy of his 2005 "Military Aviator Pilot" 
degree from Mexico and underlying transcript. But the degree certificate does not indicate what type 
of degree he was granted, including whether it is a bachelor's level degree as the Director concluded. 
Further, both the certificate and transcript clearly show that the Petitioner completed a 3-year program. 
He did not submit an independent academic evaluation or any other evidence demonstrating that this 
3-year degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which generally requires four years of 
university-level education. See, e.g., Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). The 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), which we consider a reliable source of information 
on foreign credential equivalencies, further indicates that a 3-year degree from Mexico is comparable 
to only three years of university study in the United States. 2 Although the Petitioner generally refers 
to his 3-year pilot degree as a "bachelor's degree," his documentary evidence does not demonstrate 
2 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/mexico (last accessed August 14, 2024). EDGE is a web-based 
resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars 
and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). AACRAO is a professional association of higher education admissions and 
registration professionals who represent academic institutions located in over 40 countries. 
2 
that it is in fact equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 3 The Petitioner 
also submitted a 2013 "Master in Business Management" diploma from the 
________ in Honduras and asserted that he attended this university from 2007 to 2012 
and completed a thesis for the program. However, the record does not contain an independent 
evaluation or official academic record for this diploma, such as a transcript, and we are unable to 
determine its claimed master's level U.S. equivalency. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Therefore, 
considering the foregoing, and contrary to the Director's determination, the Petitioner has not 
established that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
Although the Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is a person of exceptional 
ability for EB-2 classification purposes, he does not challenge or address this finding on appeal. We 
therefore do not reach this issue here. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
Without first establishing his eligibility for EB-2 classification, the Petitioner cannot qualify for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Even ifwe were to consider the merits of this waiver, 
we agree with the Director's decision denying it because the Petitioner did not demonstrate his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance and thus did not meet Dhanasar' s first prong. 
The Petitioner intends to continue to work as a commercial airline pilot in the United States and also 
plans to work as a flight instructor for _____ an aviation training center. 
Dhanasar's first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, 
technology, culture, health, or education. In assessing whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
We agree with the Director that while the Petitioner's proposed work as a commercial pilot and flight 
instructor may have substantial merit, the record does not establish that it is of national importance 
because his documentary evidence does not show his proposed undertakings would have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, broadly impact the aviation field beyond his occupations, or 
otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, he does not submit any new evidence but alleges that the Director failed to apply the correct 
evidentiary standard and did not consider all the relevant evidence. 
Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director 
properly analyzed and weighed the Petitioner's documentation by a preponderance of the evidence to 
evaluate whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
3 Absent evidence establishing that he has a U.S. bachelor's or foreign equivalent degree, no purpose would be served in 
addressing whether the Petitioner has the requisite five years of post-degree experience. 
3 
In asserting that his proposed endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner primarily refers to his 
academic credentials and professional experience, as indicated in his intent letter, professional plan, 
resume, and numerous support letters, as well as general market information included in the 
voluminous industry reports and articles pertaining to the aviation industry, alarming pilot shortage, 
and the importance of education in the field. He maintains that, given his expertise and extensive 
background, which he claims ideally align with the increasing demand for pilots and instructors, he 
will help fill the job shortage and provide high quality training to future pilots, which would in tum 
have a broader, substantial positive impact in the industry and this country. However, the Petitioner's 
reliance on his credentials and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar, which 
specifically relates to whether he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec.at 890. 
For Dhanasar's first prong, at issue here, we consider the "potential prospective impact" of the 
proposed endeavor, rather than the importance of the specific field or industry in which he proposes 
to engage. Id. at 889. In doing so, we assess the evidence to determine whether the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake has broader implications within the particular field or industry. 
Id. at 890. Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a commercial pilot 
and flight instructor could have a positive impact on his future customers and employers, he has not 
persuasively explained, and the evidence does not demonstrate, how being a pilot and instructor for 
various companies would have broader implications for the aviation industry and U.S. economy as he 
claims, beyond his own occupations and the companies' potential clientele. 
The Petitioner also reiterates that his extensive experience and expertise in piloting skills and his plans 
to employ cutting-edge training methodology for future pilots indicate that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance. However, the record does not contain any competent evidence demonstrating 
that his pilot expertise and claimed innovative training methods were ever recognized or adopted by 
the aviation industry at large or otherwise made a significant economic or other impact. We note that 
in Dhanasar, the petitioner's work as a science teacher, while it was found to have substantial merit, 
did not qualify him under the first prong because the record did not show how that work would impact 
science education more broadly. Id. at 893. 
In Dhanasar, we also noted that endeavors with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or 
those having "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" 
may have national importance. Id. The Petitioner, in his two-page letter of intent as well as a 
subsequent four-page professional plan, asserts that his endeavor as a pilot and flight instructor would 
broadly impact the national economy and help provide U.S. jobs by addressing the demand for pilots. 
However, he does not provide any detail or corroborating evidence on the claimed economic impact 
and hiring potential, such as financial or employment projections directly attributable to his proposed 
work. The record therefore does not reflect that the proposed endeavor would have positive economic 
effects at the level of national importance or that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers. 
The Petitioner continues to rely on the importance of the aviation industry and a shortage of pilots as 
evidence of the significance of his work by referencing various industry reports. However, as stated, 
the importance of an endeavor is determined by its specific potential prospective impact, not by the 
industry or occupation it involves. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. The purpose of 
the national interest waiver thus is not to facilitate an individual's U.S. job search where there are job 
shortages. Anyone seeking such a waiver must demonstrate that "the specific endeavor" they propose 
4 
to undertake has national importance. Id. Further, as the Director determined, the claimed pilot 
shortage is not a relevant consideration here in assessing the issue of national importance as the 
U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses shortages of qualified workers through its labor 
certification process. See id. at 885; see also 20 C.F .R. § 656.1. Although the Petitioner generally 
asserts that the Director failed to consider "the urgency" created by the claimed shortage, he does not 
meaningfully address how this claimed urgency specifically relates to his proposed work and 
Dhanasar's national importance prong, and the record does not otherwise show that there is an urgent 
national interest specifically in his proposed work as a pilot and a flight instructor. 
Although the Petitioner's endeavor has merit, he has not established that being a well-qualified pilot 
and flight instructor has national importance as the record lacks sufficient probative evidence that his 
endeavor has broader national implications in the aviation industry beyond his employers and 
customers. Considering the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor, and therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As the identified grounds for denial, the Petitioner's inability to establish his eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification and satisfy Dhanasar's first prong for a national interest waiver, are 
dispositive of this appeal, we decline to reach the remaining appeal arguments as to the second and 
third prongs of the framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5