dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2025 In Re: 34885621 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot and instructor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver 
if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the following summary of his 
proposed endeavor: 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to continue in his capacity as an airline pilot 
and flight instructor as well as in the realm of sustainable aeronautics, focusing on 
innovating advanced propulsion systems and alternative fuels for aviation. With a rich 
academic background involving a Master of Science in Aeronautics, as well as his 
current progress towards a diploma in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, [the 
Petitioner's] objective is to spearhead initiatives in the aviation sector focusing on 
sustainable aeronautics, drafting and implementing engineering plans that can 
drastically diminish the aviation industry's carbon footprint. 
Regarding his plan to continue his work as a pilot and instructor, the Petitioner stated that he would 
provide training and mentorship "to educate the next generation of pilots on sustainable flight 
practices," as well as "develop an instructional pathway program designed for U.S. aviation pilots and 
flight instructor students ... to enhance the pilots' aeronautical decision making, risk management, 
and single pilot resource management skills, without compromising basic stick and rudder skills." 
Concerning the sustainability element of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner explained in general 
terms that he would "engage with top-tier research institutions and aviation companies that will focus 
on engineering innovations that drastically reduce aviation emissions," stating that he would 
"continue to conduct extensive studies" and use his "innovative prowess evidenced by his registered 
patents" to "partner with aircraft design and engineering teams to explore modifications and overhauls 
that make aircrafts more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly." 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, 
the Petitioner reiterates his explanation of the national importance of his endeavor, asserting that the 
Director's evaluation of the evidence focused only on a portion of the proposed endeavor: addressing 
purported shortages of qualified pilots in the United States. Upon review, for the reasons discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of 
his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
2 
The first prong, 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. 
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." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. Further, to evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided reports and articles discussing the aviation industry, as well as documentation 
outlining Congressional and White House initiatives concerning the importance of aviation within the 
economy and a need for more accessible flight training opportunities. Although the Petitioner asserts 
in his RFE response that his endeavor will further certain objectives described in this documentation, 
the material itself does not provide sufficient insight into any specific plans that the Petitioner has 
concerning his intent to work in the field of aviation in the United States. While this documentation 
relates to the area in which the Petitioner intends to work, it does not speak to how specific work 
conducted by the Petitioner in the field of aviation would have a potential prospective impact of 
national importance. And although the Petitioner also offered documentation concerning his education 
and experience, including patents in China for a magnetic hanging spring for vehicles and a teaching 
apparatus for the periodic table of elements, this information does not provide insight into any specific 
proposed endeavor envisioned by the Petitioner beyond that of continuing his work as a pilot and 
instructor; the Petitioner has not explained, for example, how his current patents might relate to his 
proposed endeavor, nor has he offered an explanation of what innovations he would apply to specific 
aspects within the aviation industry or how he would deploy them to have an impact on a national 
level. 
Similarly, letters of support from colleagues, previous classmates, and a former student discuss the 
Petitioner's qualifications as a pilot and instructor, but they do not provide specific information 
concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Although these and other letters of support laude the 
Petitioner's knowledge and skills, they do not illuminate any definitive endeavor he intends to pursue 
in the United States. We note that evidence of work experience generally relates not to the national 
importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the second, 2 
which evaluates whether an individual is well positioned to advance an endeavor. In addition, while 
an expert opinion letter discusses the importance of the aviation industry and pilot shortages, it does 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
not explain how the Petitioner's employment as an individual pilot or instrnctor ofpilots would address 
any national shortage of pilots. As such, these letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided the following description of his endeavor in his RFE response: 
The global aviation sector is at a crossroads. With increasing demands for air travel 
juxtaposed with environmental concerns, there's a pressing need for innovation. 
Recent studies suggest that by 2040, over 40% of global commercial aircraft fleets 
might become electric. Alternative fuels, too, are projected to account for a substantial 
portion of the aviation industry's fuel needs by 2050. [The Petitioner] understands the 
nuances and challenges of this transformative phase. His work aims not just at 
improved efficiency but also at positioning the U.S. aeronautics sector as a world leader 
in sustainability. The potential benefits of such innovations are multifold: reduced 
carbon emissions, decreased operational costs, and a significant positive impact on the 
environment. 
While we recognize that the Petitioner's general intention to improve efficiency within the aviation 
industry and to elevate the United States within the field is an endeavor of substantial merit, he has 
not detailed how his work as an individual in the field would specifically achieve his broadly described 
ambitions. Again, it is not the overall importance of the industry or field in which the Petitioner 
intends to work, but the specific endeavor on which the Petitioner intends to embark that we consider 
in evaluating whether it is of national importance. Although an endeavor that is shown to have 
significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare may be considered to have national 
importance, 3 here, the Petitioner has described general goals without defining his specific endeavor 
beyond that of an intention to collaborate with entities to possibly develop approaches to complex 
issues within the aviation industry. And while the Petitioner has generally speculated that the impact 
of his work would create jobs in the United States, he did not provide independent evidence or 
otherwise explain how he would create jobs at a level that would have a significant impact on a given 
region or have a prospective national impact on a specific field. A petitioner must support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The 
record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner's individual work would impact 
the economy at the level of national importance contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Petitioner has not specifically described how he would undertake an endeavor of a scale that 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. While the Petitioner has described in broad terms the services he intends to provide, he has not 
explained how his work would have a national-level impact to realize U.S. goals to, as he described 
in his RFE response, achieve sustainable aviation and develop the U.S. workforce. 
The record 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. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l). 
4 
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 agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5