dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 15, 2024 In Re: 31459131 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a commercial pilot and flight instructor, seeks second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest.' 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. 
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, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
1 We note the Petitioner indicates on appeal that neither he, nor counsel, received a copy of the Director's decision. 
However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicate that a copy of the decision was properly 
mailed to each, and neither was returned as "undeliverable." 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 2 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor is to "train U.S. pilots at the I Florida] 
branch of [I-A-S- LLC3]." He stated that "[b]ecause of the crucial role that pilots play in the U.S. 
economy, and because of the critical challenges facing airlines in hiring enough pilots, [his] proposed 
endeavor to train pilots in the United States addresses a key national interest of substantial merit." The 
Petitioner submitted numerous news articles discussing the airline industry and the expected global 
pilot shortage. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that 
he "proposes to teach the highest level flight instruction courses offered by [I-A-S- LLC]." He 
indicated that he "will offer particular expertise in inclement weather and dangerous condition 
training, based on his exceptional career and track record in such situations." The Petitioner 
submitted 4 a letter from D-K-, Chief Executive Officer of I-A-S- LLC, stating that the Petitioner's 
proposed employment "will offer impactful benefits to the largest U.S. airlines by enabling the sizable 
expansion of training opportunities that can bring pilots to the highest levels of qualification in the 
industry. This is important for improving the smooth functioning of the aviation industry, which has 
ripple effects for the economy of the United States." He submitted a letter from R-U-, an industry 
professional, discussing the airline industry and pilot shortages, and detailing the specialized 
knowledge and skills required to train the high-level courses. He also submitted a letter from Captain 
Z-, a former inspector for the describing the Petitioner's high­
level experience, along with numerous articles outlining the current and expected pilot shortages in 
the United States and elsewhere. 
As stated above, the first Dhanasar prong looks to the proposed endeavor and requires that the 
Petitioner demonstrate that it has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 889. 
Regarding substantial merit, the endeavor's merits may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
3 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals. 
4 This is a non-exhaustive list of evidence the Petitioner submitted in the record. While we may not discuss eve1y document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but 
not its national importance. On appeal,the Petitioner reiterates that he "intends to work as [a] flight 
instructor at [I-A-S- LLC] in Florida]." He indicates that the record includes highly detailed 
statements from experts "with relevant knowledge of the proposed endeavor and the specifics of [his] 
ability to advance the proposed endeavor .... and extensive independent news articles, government 
policy documents and regulations, and other evidence that demonstrates the critical role that pilots 
play in the functional operation of the U.S. economy." The Petitioner concludes that "the independent 
evidence of America's strong need for pilot trainers, the enormous impact of having insufficient pilots 
on the U.S. economy, and the industry projections of a growing deficit of available pilots demonstrates 
that [his] proposed endeavor would be of particular value to the aviation industry and U.S. economy 
more broadly." The Petitioner submits5 an updated Personal Plan describing "how [his] credentials 
meet specific needs of the national interest." He then provides a new expert opinion letter from W-C-, 
Professor Emeritus and Program Coordinator Air Traffic Management from I 
in I I Florida, evaluating "the national interest implications of 
solving the ongoing pilot shortage in the United States" and a new National Impact Study for the 
proposed endeavor with a "detailed analysis and statistical argument for the impact of skilled flight 
instructors on alleviating the pilot shortage and the downstream impacts of this proposed endeavor." 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly reviewed the provided evidence and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar using the 
preponderance of the evidence standard. Further, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has substantial merit but does not satisfy the national importance element of Dhanasar's 
first prong. If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the 
Petitioner ineligible for the national interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third 
prongs. 
On appeal, as in the underlying case, the Petitioner relies on the importance of the aviation industry 
and the shortage of pilots in the United States as evidence of the national importance of his endeavor. 
However, we are not persuaded by this claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due 
to the shortage of professionals in his field. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render 
the work of an individual flight instructor nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
See id. (looking to the "potential prospective impact" and "broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor). Here, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or 
significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 6 The 
5 Again, while we may not discuss every document submitted on appeal, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 Therefore, a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in 
that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 885; see 
also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
3 
I 
Petitioner has not shown how his specific proposed endeavor, as an individual flight instructor, has 
national implications within his particular field. Rather, it appears that he will be working at an 
individual flight school that will exclusively benefit from all of his efforts within his field and his 
proposed endeavor involves only the 80 individual pilots he will train per year. 
The Petitioner has not otherwise provided sufficient evidence documenting the "potential prospective 
impact" of his work. See id. While the Petitioner's proposed high-level flight instruction has 
substantial merit, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, we conclude the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's high-level flight instruction stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his future individual students attending his specific flight school to impact the field of piloting 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner's claims that his 
employment as a flight instructor will have downstream impacts on the aviation industry and U.S. 
economy are insufficient to establish how his proposed endeavor's impact will extend beyond his 
students and employer to the broader aviation field. 
The record does not indicate that the Petitioner's endeavor will have national implications for the field 
of aviation. It also does not quantify what economic benefits the endeavor will generate, and so does 
not show that the endeavor will result in "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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"); 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). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude 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. 
4