dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2025 In Re: 37188402 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and 
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 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 l&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, petitioners must establish they are advanced 
degree professionals or individuals of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined the Petitioner was not eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. As the Petitioner is 
not eligible for a national interest waiver for the reasons discussed below, we do not reach and hereby 
reserve our determination of his eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, 
technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The Petitioner stated his proposed endeavor was to work 
as an airline pilot and "to contribute to aviation companies by harmonizing aviation's technical and 
administrative aspects by acting as a Captain that bridges the perspectives of flight crews and 
management, offering a holistic approach to addressing the industry's challenges." The Petitioner 
explained he would primarily work as a Line Captain and would also serve as an instructor. The 
Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other 
substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has 
other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic 
effects or broader implications in his field commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred and his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor will have substantial economic effects based on the total 
ticket costs and federal exercise taxes of the flights he pilots each year, which he projects to be $10,098, 
042 in ticket revenue the first year increasing to $11,881,309 in the fifth year, and $757,353 in taxes 
the first year increasing to $891,098 in the fifth year. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, however, 
that these revenue and tax projections are significantly high for the airline industry or otherwise 
indicate positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner also claims 
his proposed endeavor will generate jobs for crew members, projecting 1,092 jobs the first year 
2 
increasing to 1,428 jobs in the fifth year. However, the Petitioner has not established how, as an airline 
pilot, he would be responsible for employing crew members rather than the airlines for which he 
works. The Petitioner further asserts that his cargo transportation will have a significant economic 
impact by transporting a projected 17,000 tons the first year increasing to 25,000 tons in the fifth year. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his projected cargo transport is significantly high in the 
aviation industry or otherwise would have a positive economic effect on a level indicative of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner also claims he can significantly contribute to the U.S. aviation industry by focusing on 
comprehensive safety analysis and proactive risk management. The Petitioner does not establish that 
his safety analysis and risk management are unique or innovative methods or otherwise have national 
or even global implications for his field. See id. at 889. ( discussing improved manufacturing processes 
or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular field). 
The Petitioner further asserts his proposed endeavor has national importance through pilot training 
and emergency preparedness, optimizing flight operations, training programs, adoption of green 
technologies, aviation security and safety, integrating advanced aviation technologies, and impact on 
ancillary industries. The Petitioner does not articulate how these aspects of his work would extend 
beyond his clients, passengers, and trainees to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of 
national importance. See id. (explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from T-S- 2, Coordinator and Lecturer, expressing 
his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. T-S- summarizes the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and asserts it has national importance because it will positively impact societal 
welfare by focusing on safety, efficiency, innovation, workforce development, and environmental 
considerations. T-S- does not articulate how the Petitioner's work in these areas would extend beyond 
the airlines he would work for, his passengers and his trainees. 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, the Petitioner has not established how his 
proposed endeavor would impact his field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national 
importance. T-S- further asserts the Petitioner's proposed endeavor impacts a matter that a 
government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. 
However, T-S- does not identify any government entity or national initiative impacted by the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. T-S- also claims the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a 
significant and positive impact on the U.S. economy by addressing the pilot shortage, offering training 
programs, engaging in ferry flight operations, embracing innovation and technology, and streamlining 
operations. T-S- does not explain how the Petitioner's work in these areas would extend beyond the 
airlines or companies he would work for and his trainees to impact his field more broadly at a level 
indicative of national importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted support letters from past employers and colleagues. S-Q- describes the 
Petitioner as "a catalyst for positive change and progress in various spheres of national interest" 
including "advanced education and training, technological innovation, international cooperation, 
industry advocacy, and economic growth." S-Q- does not explain, however, how the Petitioner's work 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individuals. 
3 
as a pilot would extend beyond the airlines, passengers, and trainees he would work with to impact his 
field more broadly. E-C- praises the Petitioner's skills, experience, and past work for his airline 
company, but does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. L-T- commends the Petitioner's 
past work and skills and opines that his "exemplary career as a pilot and his global approach to aviation 
safety make him an asset for contributing to the national interests of the United States," but L-T- does 
not specify how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would broadly impact his field in a manner 
indicative of national importance. M-F- praises the Petitioner's past work and states his "multifaceted 
experience in commercial aviation and his proficiency in handling cargo qualify him as a highly 
relevant asset to the economy and society in the United States," but M-F- does not explain how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond the airlines or companies he would work with 
to impact his field more broadly. S-K- commends the Petitioner's past work and skills and opines that 
"his dedication to safety, mentorship, and cross-cultural collaboration exemplify qualities that align 
with the US national interest," but does not discuss any potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted reports and articles on various issues affecting the aviation industry. 
Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or industry in 
general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Id. at 889. The reports and articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are not 
probative of whether his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In sum, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic 
effects, has national or even global implications within his field, or has other broader implications 
indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 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 the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4