dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 08, 2024 In Re: 33948651 
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 
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 that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to waive 
the requirements of a job offer. 1 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
1 The appeal brief states that the Director's decision did not address if the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
endeavor. That is incorrect. The Director's decision deemed that the Petitioner is well positioned. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 4 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. However, because we conclude that he is not eligible for, and does not merit as a matter of 
discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. 
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 ofL-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). 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner intends to join "a civilian search and rescue organization" or "a comparable civilian air 
ambulance service" as a pilot. He also intends to train his employer's pilots and assist in the training of 
law enforcement pilots. The evidence provided does establish that the proposed endeavor is of 
substantial merit. However, the record does not demonstrate that the specific endeavor is of national 
importance. 
4 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 I&N Dec. 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. 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. In Dhanasar we determined that 
the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately described how his position as a pilot and instructor will have a 
broader impact on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive 
economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner 
argues in response to the request for evidence (RFE) that his proposed work is nationally important 
because few organizations offer these services and as such "the geographic scope of civilian search and 
rescue, or air ambulance companies, is nationwide." This argument ignores the requirements of 
Dhanasar. As Dhanasar makes clear, we look for "national or even global implications within a 
particular field." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner's appeal brief further emphasizes the importance of "search and rescue and law 
enforcement aviation" and the importance of the Petitioner's past work in the United States. 
Nevertheless, as Dhanasar clearly instructs, the importance of the field does not determine the 
proposed endeavor's national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The briefs and the 
record do not explain how the Petitioner as a single pilot would have a nationally important impact on 
the search and rescue or air ambulance aviation field. The Petitioner must show how his individual 
work will have a nationally important impact on the field. Moreover, the Petitioner's past work 
experience concerns the determination under prong two to determine if the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner also notes the pilot shortage in the United States. However, the provided evidence and the 
Petitioner's assertions, do not adequately explain how his intention to fill a single position as a pilot or to 
work as an instructor would have a national impact on this very large, claimed national shortage. The 
burden is on the Petitioner to provide evidence to support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In addition, the importance of a 
nationwide issue does not confer national importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a 
pilot or an instructor. Again, in determining national importance within the Dhanasar framework, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work, but the impact of the specific endeavor that the individual will undertake. Id. at 889. 
3 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 5 The Petitioner provided his 
statements, letters of recommendation, and a number of articles and reports. 6 Many of the articles and 
reports provide background on the field or explain the field's importance. Yet the importance of the field 
does not determine the proposed endeavor's national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
Furthermore, though the articles and reports provide background information, they are oflittle evidentiary 
value to the issue of national importance of the proposed endeavor. This is because they do not address 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the aviation field in a way 
that implicates national importance. Moreover, though the letters of recommendation state that the 
Petitioner is a skilled pilot or detail specific past job performance, they did not stipulate how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will contribute to the aviation field on a nationally important level. We 
observe that two of the letters generally noted that the Petitioner's skills would benefit the national 
interest. Nevertheless, in both, beyond this broad remark, the writers neglected to specifically illustrate 
how the proposed endeavor would be nationally important. 
Regarding his proposal to work as an instructor, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his training 
of pilots offers broader implications for his field. Similar to the petitioner in Dhanasar, while the 
Petitioner's plan to instruct pilot trainees has substantial merit, he has not demonstrated that his actions 
as an individual instructor would impact the field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner claims that his work also has the potential for significant economic impact. To support 
this assertion, the Petitioner points to his past work with the where he helped enforce 
fisheries regulations and performed other missions. He also points to the economic and social impact 
of keeping illegal drugs out of the United States. However, these are his past actions. His proposed 
endeavor is not to work in his past position. Although the Petitioner avers that he plans to train law 
enforcement pilots, he had not provided sufficient evidence to link this proposed training to any 
specific significant economic impact. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions 
themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter of S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) 
("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight"). Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would 
have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects as 
outlined by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend to affect the region or nation more 
broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has also not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 We observe that many of the articles and reports submitted were lacking several pages of their content. We have reviewed 
them based on the pages included in the submission. The Petitioner should include all relevant pages of an article or report 
in any future submissions. 
4 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5