dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22679096 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 11, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
was an advanced degree professional and established eligibility for EB-2 classification, he had not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
established that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit. However, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner had not established that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, that he was 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 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 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 ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor as follows: 
I intend to continue using my expertise and knowledge in the field of aviation by 
working as a Pilot for airlines in the U.S. I have extensive experience in the areas of 
aviation aeronautics, flight operations, international flight operations, military aviation, 
crew resource management, flight safety, safety operations, flight logistics, and 
leadership. I intend to use my skill set to help curtail the shortage of pilots in the U.S. 
He asserts that this proposed endeavor will "help fill the shortage of pilots and improve the efficiency 
of the U.S. aviation industry ... [and] substantially benefit the U.S. economy and national interest 
considering the airline industry's national importance." 
The first prong of Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that 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 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined that, although 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record did not establish the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully review and consider all of the evidence 
in the record and erroneously calculated his total experience in the field and number of flight hours. 3 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director did not apply the correct standard of proof when 
reviewing the evidence. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless 
conclude that the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree earned in 2004, followed by 
more than five years of progressive experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
3 The Director stated that the Petitioner has 25 years of experience and 4,260 flight hours. The Petitioner states in his 
professional plan and statement that he has 14 years of experience and 4,260 flight hours. The Director correctly stated 
the Petitioner's flight hours and his overstatement of the Petitioner's experience is immaterial to the decision's outcome. 
2 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. 
With the initial filing and in response to the Director's request for evidence, 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. Contrary to the Petitioner's claim, in the decision the Director 
identifies many of the Petitioner's submitted resources by title and includes direct quotations from 
several supporting documents. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 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. at 889. 
The articles and reports evidence the shortage of airline pilots. However, as the Director noted, the 
labor certification process addresses shortages of qualified workers in fields. This fact alone is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. We further 
note that the reference materials in the record do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. 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 id. at 889. Although we acknowledge 
the importance of the aviation and aeronautics fields, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and 
documented how his work as a pilot for U.S. airline companies would produce an impact rising to the 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. The opinion primarily discusses the Petitioner's education and experience, as well as 
the U.S. pilot shortage and the aviation industry based on prior resources from 2016 to 2018. The 
advisory opinion does not contain a discussion of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its 
national importance. Furthermore, the opinion reiterates the information the Petitioner already 
provided in his resume and professional plan without adding 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 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 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. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation documenting his experience as a pilot. 
Although the record demonstrates the Petitioner's achievements in his career in aviation, the evidence 
does not demonstrate the impact of his work on the overall field of aviation beyond his specific 
employers. 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). 
3 
The Petitioner states that he intends to "pursue positions within airline companies" in the United States. 
However, the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job 
search. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described, is not specific enough to determine its 
broader impact. 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. As noted above, in Dhanasar, we held 
that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the record contains descriptions of past and current 
employment, we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor 
to conclude that it has national importance. While the evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's prior 
distinguished service, honor, and merit, it does not support a finding of impact to the field of aviation. 
The Petitioner repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of 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. 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 I&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 
I&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 I&N 
Dec. at 890. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, the 
remainder of the Petitioner's arguments need not be addressed. 4 It is unnecessary to analyze any 
remaining independent grounds when another is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to 
reach whether he meets the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
4 Even if we had addressed the remaining issues and arguments, we still would dismiss this appeal. As noted above. the 
Director concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
references the same supporting already in the record and does not provide any new evidence. The Director fully addressed 
the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner is eligible for a 
national interest waiver. The Petitioner's arguments on appeal do not establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar 
prongs as required. 
4 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when 
another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of L-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established eligibility 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. 
5