dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 03, 2025 In Re: 34557054 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 
either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance and therefore he is ineligible for a 
national interest waiver. 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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the denial decision, the Director did not analyze and determine whether the Petitioner is a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, noting it is questionable whether a degree is required 
for his occupation. The Director stated this issue would only be discussed if necessary. Additionally, 
the Director did not analyze and determine whether the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional 
ability. Rather, the Director's decision focused on whether the Petitioner met the requirements for a 
national interest waiver. The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he met the 
national interest waiver requirements. Specifically, while the Director determined that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, the Director did not find that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. Based on this finding, the Director found that no purpose would be served in analyzing 
whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and whether waiving the 
job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
We 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. In making our decision we have reviewed the 
record which includes, but is not limited to, statements from the Petitioner, articles and industry 
reports, certificates and licenses, a resume, professional and educational records, work experience and 
recommendation letters, and photographs. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated on his petition that he would "[p]]ilot and 
navigate the flight of fixed-wing aircraft(s) on nonscheduled air carrier routes, or helicopters." In 
response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner further stated he will work as a flight instructor and train 
other pilots. He stated he would apply to the major operators of the Boeing 737, including American 
Airlines, Delta, United, and Southwest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the 
record establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We also agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Director listed evidence submitted by the Petitioner and provided a summary of the relevant law 
related to national importance. Next, the Director mentioned the Petitioner's reference to the 
importance of his field, but that the focus of national importance analysis is on the proposed endeavor 
and not the importance of the field, industry, or profession he would work in. The Director then 
addressed the Petitioner's claim that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to the 
shortage of pilots, and found there is no indication the proposed endeavor would significantly reduce 
a claimed national shortage and that shortages of qualified workers is already addressed through the 
labor certification process. The Director also noted the proposed endeavor would not introduce new 
training processes or methodologies, influence the broader sector, have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
2 
area. The Director acknowledged letters in support of the Petitioner. The Director found they were 
not supported by evidence showing broader implications of his proposed endeavor, and furthermore 
they generally relate to the second Dhanasar prong. Finally, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond an organization and its 
clients or the individuals he intends to serve to impact the industry or field more broadly, or that the 
proposed endeavor has global or national implications. Based on the above analysis, the Director 
determined that the proposed endeavor lacks national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner lists previously submitted evidence and asserts that the Director failed to 
consider and properly weigh all the evidence. Specifically, the Petitioner claims the evidence 
establishes the positive impact that the proposed endeavor would have on the aviation industry. The 
Petitioner states that evidence that he will train new pilots was ignored by the Director. He mentions 
that his work as a flight instructor will impact the travel industry for decades, as he will work for four 
decades and potentially train thousands of new pilots. He claims that the Director ignored how this 
will influence the broader sector and impact or significantly reduce a national shortage in the aviation 
industry. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director gave no rational explanation as to how training 
thousands of pilots for the next 40 years lacks national importance or how it lacks economic impact. 
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 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide pilot and instructor services in the aviation 
industry, 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. InDhanasar, 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. Similarly, the Petitioner would be instructing 
other individuals how to fly, but the record does not establish he would be impacting his field more 
broadly. As mentioned by the Director, the proposed endeavor does not introduce new training 
processes or methodologies. The record also lacks sufficient detail about the instruction component 
of the proposed endeavor in order to understand how he would train thousands of pilots. Although the 
Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor would have an economic impact, the record does not include 
sufficient evidence establishing that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate 
such claims. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his future employer and individuals he would instruct to impact his field, 
3 
the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner indicates his proposed endeavor would significantly reduce a national shortage 
in the aviation industry. However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not 
render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such 
shortages of qualified workers, as mentioned by the Director, are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is 
dispositive of the appeal, and the Director did not make a finding whether the Petitioner is eligible for 
EB-2 classification, whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
whether waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, we will not address these 
issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4