dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 12, 2024 In Re: 31456309 
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 or as an individual of exceptional ability. 
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. § 1153(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 Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that: 1) he qualified for the EB-2 classification as either a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability; or 2) he merited a national 
interest waiver, as a matter of discretion, under the three-prong framework outlined in Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 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. 
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 defme the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner described his proposed endeavor in response to a request for evidence as follows: 
The Petitioner['s] endeavor in the United States is to work as an airline pilot for U.S. 
companies/airlines needing to hire pilots to meet up with demand. Additionally, 
as a senior-level pilot and experienced flight instructor, he would also work as a flight 
instructor to train and prepare the next generation of pilots .... 
The Petitioner's undertaking has both substantial merit and is of significant national 
importance because it will benefit the overall aviation industry and, consequently, the 
economy of the United States. The aviation industry is essential to the viability of 
the U.S. economy because, among other things, it facilitates commerce and economic 
growth. The aviation industry accounts for more than 5% of our Gross Domestic 
Product (GDP), contributes $1.8 trillion in total economic activity, and supports 
nearly 11 million jobs. . . . According to the Federal Aviation Administration, "[t]he 
nation's economic success depends on having a vibrant civil aviation industry." 
Additionally, the civil aviation industry provides services to other U.S. industries 
and contributes to people's quality of life (i.e., the American people) in several other 
ways that are not captured in standard economic indicators. Moreover, his undertaking 
is of national importance as it will also contribute to humanitarian aid and national 
security of the United States. As such, [ the Petitioner's] undertaking has much broader 
implications. [Emphasis in the original.] 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he did 
not demonstrate his proposed endeavor had national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director erred in their conclusion and contends the provided evidence demonstrates the national 
importance of his endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor to establish his 
eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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." 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. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to documentation provided in support of the petition discussing air 
transport market trends and estimated growth projections. He also emphasizes documentation 
discussing pilot shortages and the potential implications of such shortages. The Petitioner further 
reiterates his assertion that his employment as a pilot and instructor in the United States "will reduce 
flight cancellations and delays" and "alleviate the pilot shortage that hinders the air transport market's 
ability to grow." In addition, the Petitioner highlights submitted evidence discussing the economic 
footprint of air travel and asserts that his proposed endeavor will contribute to diversity within the 
industry and facilitate trade and commerce. 
The provided evidence and the Petitioner's assertions, however, do not explain how his intention to 
fill a single position as a pilot or to work as an instructor would alleviate an asserted national shortage 
of pilots. For instance, the Petitioner states on appeal that "a shortage of about 29,000 pilots is 
expected in the next ten years," but he provides little indication how his employment as a pilot and 
instructor would have a national impact on this very large, claimed national shortage. The Petitioner's 
contention that his proposed work would have a potential positive impact on the number of pilots in 
the United States does not demonstrate a likely potential prospective national impact on the field of 
aviation or the airline industry. He did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his individual 
employment in the field would impact widespread issues such as flight timeliness and air travel market 
growth. The burden is on the Petitioner to provide evidence to support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&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 specific endeavor that the individual will undertake. Id. at 
889. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has established how his proposed endeavor would have 
substantial economic effects "by facilitating integration into the global economy, as well as increasing 
commerce and economic growth." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed 
endeavor would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly, rising to the level of national 
importance. Further, it is not clear how the Petitioner's employment as a flight instructor in the United 
States would have a positive economic impact at the level of "substantial economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For example, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the air 
transport industry stands to "contribute 15.5 million direct jobs and $1.5 trillion in GDP (gross 
domestic product) to the world economy," yet he submitted little explanation for how the employment 
of one pilot and instructor would have a national impact on such a large industry. 
While the Petitioner links his proposed endeavor's national importance to an asserted shortage of 
pilots, we observe that shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that his endeavor 
stands to have an impact on the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of 
national importance. Although the Petitioner intended to train future pilots, he does not sufficiently 
explain or document how his individual training efforts would have the national impact contemplated 
by Dhanasar. 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. Id. at 893. 
Similarly, the Petitioner here has not properly detailed or documented how working as a pilot and 
instructor would impact his field more broadly. 
The Petitioner emphasizes evidence in the record of his experience as a pilot, such as "delivering 
humanitarian aid relief and operating aircrafts over war zones and hostile areas." He further points to 
letters of recommendation discussing his contributions as a pilot, including his work with the United 
Nations and the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, as well as his flight experience in the Middle East and 
Africa. The Petitioner asserts that his experience could be utilized by the United States in future 
emergencies and crises. However, while the Petitioner's experience is intrinsic to his proposed 
endeavor, we note that an individual's experience is generally relevant not to the first prong of the 
Dhanasar adjudicative framework, but to the second, 2 which assesses whether an individual is well­
positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. As such, evidence of the Petitioner's experience as a pilot 
does not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
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 
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). 
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. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5