dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 8, 2024 In Re: 30633814 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline captain and flight instructor, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as a 
noncitizen 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. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
Dhanasar prong. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. Next, a 
petitioner 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889, 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he has more than 40 years of commercial flight experience. He is currently 
employed with an international airline operating out of Ethiopia as an airline captain and lead TRI/TRE 
(Type Rating Instructor/Examiner). He states that he plans to work as an airline training 
captain/instructor and "Full Motion" simulator instructor for the Boeing 777 /787 airplane. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted a cover letter, evidence of his education and experience, 
employment letters, recommendation letters, and licenses. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence to attempt to establish his eligibility for EB-2 classification 
and a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a letter brief, an ET A 
Form 750 Part B, an ETA Form 9089, additional evidence of his education and experience, and 
recommendation/job letters. 
In his letter brief submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner similarly states that his proposed 
endeavor is "seeking the position of an Airline Training Captain and Simulator Instructor Boeing 
777/787." He states that he has "already established a tentative agreement with Flight Training 
management for [his] potential hiring into this open position, pending the acquisition of a work 
permit." Initially, the Petitioner included the contact information for this potential job and stated that 
USCIS was free to contact them. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had established 
that he has an advanced degree. Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the endeavor. 3 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 As this matter is decided on national importance, we reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner meets the EB-2 
classification. 
3 We reserve our decision as to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to effectuate his proposed endeavor. See INS v. 
2 
However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance or that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's claim that his general expertise as a professional pilot and 
flight instructor would contribute to positive outcomes for airlines and the broader economy did not 
demonstrate the broader implications of his proposed endeavor. Additionally, the Director stated that 
"the importance of the aviation industry to the United States, on its own, is insufficient to demonstrate 
that the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to a level of national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits his pro se letter brief and asserts that "there is a severe pilot shortage, 
a challenge that extends beyond personal aspiration." He further asserts that the "U.S. aviation sector 
is in dire need of more pilots, further exacerbated by a scarcity of qualified airline instructors." As a 
result, the Petitioner states that a "highly experienced airline instructor can play a pivotal role in 
helping alleviate this challenge by imparting their knowledge to hundreds, if not thousands, of aspiring 
pilots." He continues that "[oo ]ver time, I will train hundreds to thousands of pilots to meet the highest 
industry standards." However, he does acknowledge that "my qualifications alone may not offer an 
immediate remedy for the acute pilot shortage, as it is not akin to groundbreaking technology or a 
revolutionary invention." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as 
required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors 
that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We note that the Petitioner's summation of his prior work experience and its importance abroad are 
not material to determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance. A petitioner's 
prior work experience and record of success are material to the second Dhanasar prong, whether an 
individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor, which the Director had determined that 
the Petitioner met. See id. 
The Petitioner's assertation that the U.S. aviation sector is "in dire need of more pilots" is unsupported. 
He does not establish how his proposed endeavor to work as an airplane captain and flight instructor 
may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Further, the Petitioner does not 
establish his endeavor has broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or. .. other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
at 889-90. The Petitioner provides no study, business plan, or projections about how his proposed 
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"). 
3 
endeavor will have benefits beyond his direct employer, and the unknown number of students he would 
train. Although the Petitioner provides evidence of his aviation licensure and good job references, 
these factors support prong two and whether he is well positioned to advance the endeavor. However, 
there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 
working as an air captain and flight instructor will have the type of broader implications envisioned 
by Dhanasar to meet the standard of national importance. 
While the Petitioner's endeavor may impact the individuals he trains, or the employers or airlines for 
which he works, the national importance of this work has not been adequately explained or 
substantiated. Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 
893. The Petitioner quotes testimony given by Faye Malarkey Black, president and CEO of the 
Regional Airline Association, to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee to support 
his claim. She stated that "[dd]espite soaring passenger demand, a worsening pilot shortage has 
hindered the regional airline industry's recovery from the pandemic and is decimating small 
community air service." The Petitioner did not show how his proposed endeavor would alleviate this 
crisis so as to make it of national importance. Further, the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence 
that his proposed endeavor would benefit "small community air service" in particular. He readily 
acknowledges that his working as a pilot alone may not rise to the level of groundbreaking technology 
to reach the level of national importance. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As 
noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prong, 
as well as whether he meets the EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4