dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 2, 2024 In Re: 30185369 
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 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of 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 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 of Christo '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. Next, a 
petitioner 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. at 889, 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 demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for anational interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to be a pilot.3 He further states that he has more 
than eleven years of experience in the aviation field. He is currently employed as a captain/instructor 
for the Boeing 737 for Initially, the Petitioner, through counsel, stated that he 
intended to "advance his career as a Pilot." In his response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), he 
stated that he plans to "generate a positive economic impact in all industries by transporting passengers 
and cargo nationally and internationally; socially, through the transport of organs and humanitarian 
flights." 
With the initial filing, and relevant to the filing, the Petitioner submitted a cover letter, an ETA Form 
750 Part B, evidence of his education and experience, an expert opinion, certificates of achievement, 
and aprofessional plan describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. He also submitted evidence of membership, employment verification letters, recommendation 
letters, and industry reports and articles. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish his eligibility for anational interest waiver. The 
Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a cover letter along with a new professional plan and 
statement letter, three additional recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner states again that his "plan is to continue his career in the United 
States as a Pilot." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had established 
that he has an advanced degree. Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor is of 
substantial merit and that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor. However, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
proposed endeavor has national importance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's claim that his general experience as a professional pilot 
would contribute to positive outcomes for the U.S. aviation industry and the broader economy did not 
demonstrate the broader implications of his proposed endeavor. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will have broader implications, or 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree awarded in 2011. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
3 While the Petitioner mentions that he will "also train others," he does not sufficiently expand on that aspect of his 
proposed endeavor in the evidence submitted. The instructor aspect of his endeavor is derivative to his main endeavor of 
a being a commercial pilot. 
2 
national or global implications within a particular field, that his endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, or that his 
endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a legal brief and asserts that the Director "imposed novel substantive 
and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." Further, the Petitioner asserts 
that "there was nothing that could eventually lead to a reasonable doubt of the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor in the United States."4 Thus, the Petitioner argues, the denial ofhis petition "is 
contrary to law or policy and unsupported by the evidence ofrecord." 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed a novel standard of proof and did not consider the 
evidence objectively. However, the Petitioner does not identify the Director's novel standard or 
describe how it differs from a preponderance of the evidence. We agree with the Petitioner that the 
preponderance of the evidence standard governs this case, which the Director applied in this matter. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Turning to the question of national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, 
we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national 
importance: having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that 
have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor will have "broad implications, as it is not only 
national, but international in scope, and will produce significant national benefits, due to the ripple 
effects of his professional activities." The Petitioner states that his work will benefit his individual 
putative employer, airlines in general, governments, corporations, and cargo shippers. 
Even crediting the Petitioner's industry reports and articles that point to a labor shortage in the aviation 
industry, the Petitioner has not shown how his specific proposed endeavor to work as a pilot may have 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and broader implications, such as 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. The Petitioner provides no study, 
business plan, or projections about how his proposed endeavor will impact anyone beyond his specific 
employer. The Petitioner does not demonstrate how his work as a pilot will improve a national 
shortage or trigger substantial positive economic impacts. Likewise, the evidence does not show that 
the Petitioner's endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare or how it has a significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers. Although the Petitioner provides evidence of his aviation licensure, good job 
references, and an expert opinion, these items mainly go to whether he is well-positioned, which the 
4 The Petitioner claims that the Director "did not give due regard" to a number of documents including his resume, 
professional plan, and letters of recommendation. However, these documents go to whether the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his endeavor and the Director determined that the Petitioner is well positioned. 
3 
Director already determined that he met, rather than national importance. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that working as a pilot will have the type of broader 
implications envisioned by Dhanasar. 
For instance, an article from 2022 titled, "Airlines face severe pilot shortage as summer travel season 
nears," states that "the pandemic heated a simmering pilot shortage to boiling point, leaving U.S. 
airlines scrambling to hire enough pilots to get flight schedules back to full capacity."5 Another article, 
tilted, "American Airlines will end service to four cities in September citing pilot shortage," explains 
that the "pilot-shortage has been an industry-wide issue." While the Petitioner has put forward 
evidence that a pilot shortage exists in the United States, the articles and reports are of limited 
evidentiary value because they do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
meaningfully impact the shortage. The articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner by name or 
his proposed endeavor and do not provide insight into any metrics showing the breadth of the venture. 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to be a pilot in the United States. Insomuch as that 
is the extent of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has put forward insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate how his endeavor will be of national significance. "In determining national importance, 
the officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific 
occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. In the same way that the teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not 
shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, here the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field of aviation on 
the U.S. economy beyond the companies benefiting from the Petitioner's services as a pilot. The 
Petitioner's updated professional plan and statement submitted in his RFE response states that the 
"American economy is highly dependent on commercial aviation due to the continental size of the 
United States." Further, he asserts that "[a]viation is an essential component of the modem global 
economy." However, his professional plan does not articulate exactly how his venture would alleviate 
the shortage he references to meet the standard of national importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter authored by Professor _____ of 
the We acknowledge that the expert opinion letter includes an analysis of the 
national importance of the "Petitioner's proposed endeavor." In his analysis, Prof. I I 
provides background information about the importance of aviation to the United States. He further 
describes a current shortage of airline pilots and anticipates that the shortage will continue into the 
future. Professor I I states that the "United States would greatly benefit from the expe1iise 
and skills of a seasoned commercial pilot" such as the Petitioner. What is missing from Professor 
I I
I 
analysis is any concrete plan that the Petitioner has involving his endeavor. Professor
ldoes not provide any discussion of how the Petitioner's endeavor of being a pilot will 
benefit more than the Petitioner and his future employer in any specific way. As a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l. Inc., 
19 I&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 detem1ination regarding an individual's eligibility for the 
benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
5 While we discuss asampling of these articles and reports, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
I 
Here, the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as the opinion does not meaningfully address 
the details of any proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. Professor 
ldoes not explain how the endeavor will have substantial rather than incremental effects on 
the U.S. economy. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite national importance of Dhanasar 's first prong analytical 
framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5