dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24443910 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 23, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification nor his eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion1, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner had not established he has at least five years of progressive 
post-baccalaureate experience as a pilot; however, we withdraw that finding. The Petitioner offered 
sufficient evidence to establish that he has the equivalent of an advanced degree. The remaining issue 
to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
In support of his petition, the Petitioner submitted numerous articles on the shortage of airline pilots, 
industry reports on aviation, a national interest waiver eligibility advisory opinion, recommendation 
letters, and his professional plan and statement, among other pieces of evidence. While we do not 
discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
On his Form 1-140, the Petitioner described his work as navigating the flight of a fixed-wing aircraft 
or helicopters on non-scheduled carrier routes. He stated in his initial professional plan and statement 
that he would "work[] as a Commercial Pilot for airlines in the U.S .... to help curtail the shortage of 
pilots in the U.S." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and notice of intent to 
deny (NOID), the Petitioner emphasized that in 2020, he established a 
Florida-based limited liability company (LLC). He explained that: 
Since its founding, I act as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Pilot, and Director of 
Operations. In addition, to acting as a pilot, I will be able to contract pilots to fulfill 
different flights. I plan to expand my business through the purchase of aircrafts, with 
the aim of helping the aviation market, while transporting passengers around the world. 
Through my company, I will generate direct and indirect jobs including publicist, 
pilots, flight attendant, mechanics, dispatchers, ground transportation, in addition to 
others. 
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). 
2 
Here, the Petitioner changed his proposed endeavor from working as a pilot for U.S. airlines to 
entrepreneurship and sourcing other pilots for contracted flights. Although the Petitioner may still 
serve as a pilot in his new proposed endeavor, he appears to focus on numerous activities outside of 
piloting aircraft for U.S. airlines. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). Furthermore, a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant changes are made to 
the initial request for approval, the Petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a 
petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The Petitioner formed his new business after 
filing the initial petition in 2018. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). If the 
Petitioner would like USCIS to consider his new endeavor as the owner and operator of I I 
,__ ______ he must file a new petition. Our decision will focus on the proposed endeavor 
as initially stated. 
As a pilot, the Petitioner stated that he can "make contributions of major significance to airlines here 
in the U.S." He explained, the endeavor will "substantially benefit the U.S. economy and national 
interest, considering the airline industry's national importance and the severe shortage of pilots in the 
U.S." He further explained that his endeavor will potentially impact the United States by enhancing 
the U.S. aviation market, addressing an acute national shortage of pilots, and helping the U.S. 
economy, as multiple industries are commercially suffering due to pilot shortages. The Petitioner 
further claimed his endeavor will create broad implications due to the ripple effects of his activities. 
He explained verbatim that: 
[H]is work will benefit the airlines; the governments, corporations, and individuals that 
require the cargo he carries on his flights; and will have numerous ripple effects for 
other businesses and industries throughout the [United States] and globally due to the 
increase of demand and air travel on a global scale. The successful transportation of 
cargo in the form of goods within the [United States] results in economic benefits such 
as the generation of more revenue, and ultimately increase the flow of money in the 
[United States] at the national level, thus contributing to the U.S. gross domestic 
product. 
The articles and reports evidence the shortage of airline pilots; however, a national shortage of 
professionals in a particular field does not necessarily establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor, as it does not in itself establish the proposed endeavor's impact. While the articles 
and reports provide helpful background information and establish the substantial merit of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we nevertheless conclude that none of the reference materials discuss 
the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. As the Director explained, 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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. We acknowledge the importance of the aviation 
field and also of addressing the nation's shortage of pilots; however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how his work as a pilot for U.S. airline companies would resolve the pilot shortage or 
produce an impact rising to the level of national importance. The record also contains evidence that 
3 
the Petitioner served in the military and received accolades and certificates of appreciation for his 
work. Such evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's distinguished service, honor, and merit, but it does 
not support a finding of impact to the field of aviation. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's recommendation letters and note the high opinion the authors have of 
the Petitioner's personal and professional qualities. While the authors describe the Petitioner's 
experience, skill, and past accomplishments, none of the letters mention the proposed endeavor or 
explain why it has national importance. The authors describe the Petitioner's achievements, but do 
not demonstrate how these achievements impacted the field. Rather, the examples provided suggest 
the Petitioner had a successful career, which benefitted the Venezuelan military and other employers, 
but not the aviation field overal I. 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission 
of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Here, the letters do not support the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, as they do not discuss the proposed endeavor or explain 
why it has national importance, nor do they describe the Petitioner's specific impact to the field. 
The Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from a professor in the department 
of aviation atl !University, concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. In the national importance section ofl !opinion, he primarily discussed statistics 
on the U.S. pilot shortage, the aviation industry, as well as the robust and high-quality nature of the 
Latin American aviation industry. The advisory opinion does not contain a discussion of the proposed 
endeavor or its national importance but rather emphasizes the importance of the aviation field. 
Furthermore, I I repeated much of the information the Petitioner already provided in his 
resume without adding sufficient independent analysis. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory 
opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed 
endeavor and why it would have national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not apply the correct standard of proof when 
reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously 
submitted. While the Petitioner's services as a pilot will benefit his employer and the passengers he 
transports, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner will meaningfully diminish the 
airline pilot shortage as a result of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the 
importance of and shortages in the field, rather than the importance of the proposed endeavor. As we 
explained, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. 
4 
In addition, the Petitioner relies heavily upon his professional qualifications, his work history, and his 
experience to assert the national importance of the proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's 
expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims that the 
proposed endeavor has national importance. Even considering the claimed ripple effects, it is not 
apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to 
the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will 
create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must 
support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 {AAO 2010). Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 890. 
The evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, 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 would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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). 
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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5