dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 21, 2023 In Re: 29157198 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a commercial airline pilot, seeks classification under the employment-based, second­
preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job offers in this category -
and thus a related requirement for certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if 
petitioners demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national 
interest." Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
eligible for the requested immigrant visa category as a noncitizen of"exceptional ability." See section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. But the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the merits 
of his waiver request. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence and 
misapplied case law. He asserts that: his proposed endeavor has "national importance;" he is "well­
positioned" to advance it; and a waiver would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he has not demonstrated the claimed national importance of his proposed 
work. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must demonstrate their qualifications 
for the requested EB-2 immigrant visa category, either as members of the professions holding 
"advanced degrees" or noncitizens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect the jobs of U.S. workers, this category usually requires prospective 
employers to offer noncitizens jobs and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ them in 
the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). To avoid the job 
offer/labor certification requirements, petitioners must demonstrate that waivers of the U.S.-worker 
protections would be in the national interest. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term national interest. Thus, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may merit waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements if they establish that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well-positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The 
Petitioner, a Venezuelan native and citizen, has wanted to be a pilot - like his father - since he was 
a child. After completing high school, he attended a pilots' school in Venezuela and began earning 
flight certifications. He has worked as a commercial pilot since 2015, starting as a contract pilot and 
becoming chief of a corporate aircraft fleet. The Petitioner now holds a U.S. commercial pilot's 
license and has a job offer from a major U.S. airline. He seeks to work as a commercial airline pilot 
in the United States. 
B. The Requested Immigrant Visa Category 
As previously indicated, the Director found the Petitioner eligible for the requested EB-2 category as 
a noncitizen of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. This classification requires 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and the potential to substantially benefit "the 
national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States." Id. The term 
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). 
To demonstrate qualifications for the category, a petitioner must first meet at least three of six 
evidentiary requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A-F). 1 Then, in a final merits determination, 
USCIS considers the evidence's quality, evaluating the petition in its entirety. 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(5)(8)(2), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Agency must determine whether a preponderance of 
the evidence demonstrates a petitioner's possession of a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. Id. 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner met at least three of the six 
evidentiary criteria. But, contrary to USCIS policy, the Director neglected to conduct a detailed final 
merits determination considering the evidence as a whole. Rather, without further discussion, the 
Director concluded: "It has been determined that the beneficiary qualifies as an individual of 
1 If those standards do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation, the noncitizen may submit comparable evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 
exceptional ability." Because the Director's decision regarding the Beneficiary's EB-2 eligibility 
lacks analysis, we will withdraw it. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l) (requiring a users officer to "explain 
in writing the specific reasons for denial"). 
To avoid making a final merits determination in the first instance and because we can resolve this 
appeal on another ground, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A­
C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal 
proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
e. Substantial Merit 
A proposed endeavor may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a significant 
economic impact" or it relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record shows that the Petitioner's plan to work as a 
U.S. commercial airline pilot could: improve air travel safety and efficiency; help alleviate a U.S. 
pilot shortage causing flight cancellations and delays; and aid airlines in remaining solvent and 
generating revenues for the U.S. economy. We therefore agree with the Director that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, users must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An 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. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's endeavor would affect large problems 
such as pilot shortages and financially struggling U.S. airlines "on a national level." The Director 
stated: 'The scope of the impact is too narrow to be in the national interest." The Director found that 
the Petitioner had not shown that his work would affect more than his employer and its customers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence and arguments. He states 
that his endeavor "rises to the level of national importance due to the impact it will have in the long­
term positive trajectory of air travel safety and efficiency through [his] employment as a commercial 
airline pilot." He states that he will seek to maintain airline services to rural U.S. cities by volunteering 
for additional flights so routes can remain open. He also states that his employment will diversify the 
U.S. aviation industry. 
The Petitioner further argues that users overlooked "the interconnectivity of the [airline] field 
amongst air service providers, airports, and crew." (emphasis in original). The Petitioner states that, 
3 
without sufficient pilots, airlines suffer from unreliable flight operations that have "a domino effect" 
on global flight patterns and flight dispatch coordination. He states that flight disruptions cause 
massive delays, cancellations, and potentially dangerous flying conditions, diminishing public trust in 
airline travel and creating revenue losses for airlines and complications for travelers. 
The Petitioner states: 
There is no single person that can resolve these disparate and evolving issues, but the 
presence of a young, qualified, and proficient commercial pilot in the U.S. is a benefit 
to the country and will help assure consistent and safe airline travel for thousands of 
civilians and will create an impact that reaches beyond his employer. His impact will 
contribute to the efficiency of commercial air travel by assuring the availability of a 
capable pilot that will complete travel routes and deter costly and complicated delays 
and cancellations. 
We recognize that the Petitioner's proposed work as an airline pilot has substantial merit. But, when 
considering national importance, we must focus on whether the particular endeavor has national 
implications. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's particular venture 
involves his employment as an airline pilot. He has not explained how his specific employment, alone, 
would affect the economy or the airline industry on a national level. He states that he "will help assure 
consistent and safe airline travel." ( emphasis added). But the record does not demonstrate that his 
specific endeavor, by itself: has the potential to assure consistent and safe airline travel nationally. He 
also has not established that his employment, by itself, could provide enough flight services to 
maintain routes to U.S. rural cities, or that his hiring, by itself: would substantially diversify the U.S. 
airline industry. 
In Dhanasar, we ruled that a meritorious proposal to teach science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematical courses to university students lacked national importance, finding insufficient evidence 
that the venture would "more broadly" affect national education. Id. at 893. Similarly, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his meritorious proposal to work as an airline pilot would "more broadly" 
affect the economy or the airline industry on a national level. 
The Petitioner asserts that, in considering the national importance of his endeavor, USCIS violated 
Dhanasar's framework. He notes that the precedent decision states: "[W]e do not evaluate prospective 
impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. The decision also states: "[W]e seek to avoid overemphasis on the geographical 
breadth of the endeavor." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner, however, cites no example of the Director's use of geographic terms to evaluate his 
endeavor's prospective impact. The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's 
employment would have broad enough implications for the national economy or the U.S. airline 
industry. But the Director's decision does not find or allege that the endeavor's impact is limited to 
one geographical area of the country. As the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion, we 
find it unpersuasive. 
4 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific endeavor: would nationally affect 
the airline industry or the economy, including an economically depressed area; has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers; or would broadly enhance societal welfare. We will therefore affirm 
the petition's denial. 
E. The Other Denial Grounds 
Our conclusion that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the claimed national importance of his 
proposed endeavor resolves this appeal. Thus, besides holding back review of his eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category, we hereby also reserve consideration of his appellate arguments regarding 
his positioning to advance his proposed venture and a waiver's purported benefits to the United States. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance. We will 
therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5