dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 6, 2023 In Re: 28455978 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualified for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 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 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. 
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 (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 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner claimed eligibility for both types ofEB-2 classification, as a member of the professions 
with an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director's decision focuses 
entirely on the issue of the national interest waiver and includes no determination as to whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. Because we nevertheless find that the record does not 
establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second­
preference eligibility criteria. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); 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). 
Upon de novo review, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to the first prong of the 
Dhanasar's analytical framework with the comments below. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 
872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the 
practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other 
circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight 
circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long 
as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). Specifically, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a pilot has substantial merit, but not national importance, and that 
the Petitioner made a material change in his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's description of his endeavor in the initial filing lacked specificity and merely expressed 
his desire to work for any leading commercial U.S. airline. The Petitioner's "Self-Letter" states that 
"my desire is to pursue a career with the best in Aviation in the United States and contribute from my 
multidisciplinary experience to become a captain and hopefully to join NASA in the future." The 
Petitioner also submitted a document titled, "EB-2 Petition for National Interest Waiver Business 
Plan," but this plan does not make any references to running his own business. Instead, the plan 
includes information about the air travel industry's outlook and the shortage of pilots in the United 
States, his professional background as a pilot, and his "Future Plans 2023-2029" that consist of the 
following five bulleted items: 
• Being recruited to a leading commercial airline such as I United, Delta, Fed-Ex etc. as a first 
officer. 
• Advance to the position of captain in a commercial airline. 
• Apply to provide my vast experience to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA). 
• I will be looking to provide my knowledge and develop aviation training projects that state of 
the art in the aviation industry that include Artificial Intelligence, Advance Augmented and 
Virtual Reality protocols. 
2 
• The aviation market both Military and Commercial needs quality training innovations and 
solutions. Pilots need to be trained professionals and they need to be at their best when thing 
goes wrong, when the stress is at its peak and when human lives are at stake. 
However, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE , the Petitioner stated that he is also 
an "Aerial Technology Specialist" and that he "owns a company.______ __.dealing in high end 
aerial solutions, which will be his proposed endeavor." The Petitioner submitted a business plan and 
other documents related to his company located in the Netherlands, such as pricing references for his 
drone technology l ~ and incorporation documents. The Petitioner then claimed that this 
endeavor of providing "high end aerial solutions - specialized drones which will be of great benefit to 
the US military, as well as first response units, and Civil professional corporations" has national 
importance. The Director found that the information and documentation submitted after the RFE 
constitute a material change, citing Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he did not materially change his proposed endeavor because the 
RFE response letter dated February 21, 2023, described his proposed endeavor as both "commercial 
airline pilot and/or aerial technology specialist." However, the Petitioner does not dispute that his 
initial description of the endeavor did not include plans of being an aerial technology specialist or 
managing his own company. While these activities share a connection through aviation, the emphasis 
of each endeavor is quite different. 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. Here, the 
Petitioner has not identified a specific and consistent proposed endeavor. USCIS regulations 
affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the 
petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
To the extent that the Petitioner's RFE response added the elements of being an aerial technology 
specialist and managing his business in drone technology and aerial solutions to his proposed 
endeavor, we agree with the Director that this was a material change. We will therefore not consider 
the changes made to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in reply to the Director's RFE. 
Now we tum to the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's endeavor to be employed a pilot in the 
United States has substantial merit but not national importance. The Director stated that "none of the 
evidence addressed how the petitioner's individual employment as a pilot would affect the field of 
commercial piloting broadly" and "none of the evidence demonstrated how the petitioner's 
employment would have a meaningful or significant effect on the shortage of pilots described by the 
record." We agree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the same recommendation letters, licenses and certificates, resume, 
and business plan, that are already on record. 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. 
In Dhanasar, we stated that "[ a ]n 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 
3 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not offered any 
evidence that his skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United 
States. The Petitioner submitted several reference letters attesting to his work experience as a pilot 
and a captain in the military, but the record does not support that the Petitioner's methodologies or 
expertise have significantly impacted the field of aviation in a way that rises to national importance. 
The Petitioner's claim on national importance of his endeavor also relies on various articles and reports 
that discuss the value of aviation industry and the lack of pilots compared to the rising demands in air 
travel. On appeal, the Petitioner offers another article addressing the pilot shortages in the United 
States. However, 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. We also look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the proposed endeavor. Id. Here, the record does 
not contain any supporting evidence that the work of one pilot would have a nationally significant 
impact in the field of aviation. 
The Petitioner acknowledges on appeal that "one single pilot cannot solve the airline shortage" but 
argues that "a collective of singular pilots will solve the pilot shortage, and that is why there are pilots 
applying for the national interest waiver." While we recognize that such shortage demonstrates 
substantial merit of his endeavor, it does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under 
the Dhanasar's framework, as it does not in itself establish the proposed endeavor's impact. In fact, 
the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process directly address such shortages 
of qualified workers. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has established how his individual 
employment would affect national aviation employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly 
consistent with national importance. However, the Petitioner has not substantiated how his specific 
work will address a pilot shortage or positively impact the economy. 
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 his proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his employment as a pilot and his employer 
to affect the region or nation more broadly. Id. at 893. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework and thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, further analysis 
of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5