dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 22, 2023 In Re : 27462530 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline pilot, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S .C. § 
1153(b)(2) . The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b )(2)(B)(i) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
did not qualify for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability and thus 
was ineligible for the benefit sought in the petition. 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States . 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges through counsel on appeal that the Director "did not 
apply the proper standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, to [his] detriment." 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the 
standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
375; see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 I&N 
Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof 
governing national interest waiver petitions. See 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While counsel contends on appeal that the Petitioner has 
provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national 
interest waiver, counsel does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director 
applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner plans to offer commercial airline pilot services to U.S. employers and has provided 
evidence, including his airline pilot training certificates, resume, flight logs, and pilot licenses, as well 
as letters from colleagues and former employers to establish that he attended various airline pilot 
training programs offered at flight schools in order to work as a commercial airline pilot from 2000 
through 2019. 
The Petitioner consistently asserted that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability and did not claim eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. In denying the petition, the Director concluded, in part, that the Petitioner fulfilled the 
academic record, experience, and licensure criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (C). We 
agree. 
As the Petitioner has satisfied the initial regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we will 
consider the entire record to determine whether the individual has a degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 
2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if it satisfies the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). For the reasons 
provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner does not qualify as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 2 
In discussing the final merits of the Petitioner's claim of exceptional ability in the totality of the 
evidence, the Director provided a full discussion and analysis of the evidence in the record. He stated, 
among other things, that the Petitioner's training credentials, experience, and licensure as an airline 
pilot did not automatically render him an individual of exceptional ability because these types of 
qualifications are part of the normal course of employment and professional development in the field 
of aviation. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted letters from colleagues and former 
employers who commended his expertise, training, leadership and management skills in the field of 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
aviation. He noted that the signatories of these letters also discussed how the Petitioner has 
competently performed his job and attest to his skillsets. In denying the petition, the Director 
concluded that the record did not support the Petitioner's contention that he possessed expertise 
significantly above that ordinary encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his accomplishments and professional achievements but does not 
provide new evidence in support of this criterion. For example, he emphasizes on appeal that: 
Throughout his career as a Commercial Pilot and through his various leading and 
critical roles such as Captain and First Officer, the Appellant has been able to succeed 
in successfully flying domestic and international flights, keeping up with flight plans, 
and conducting flight operations, among other key specialties. He has acquired 
experience and expertise in commercial airlines, flight operations, and security and 
punctuality . 
These tasks appear to be in keeping with those typically performed by those employed in the 
"Commercial Pilots" occupation, which is the occupation listed by the Petitioner in Part 6 of the 
petition. See the Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Commercial Pilots" which may be viewed at https://www.onetonline .org/link/summary /53-
2012.00. Without more, the Petitioner has not shown how the successful performance of these 
commercial pilot duties establish that he has been recognized for his achievements and contributions 
in the aviation field, or otherwise possesses expertise significantly above that normally encountered 
therein. For instance, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) he contends: 
[I] stand out for my extensive experience as a pilot and ample knowledge in the 
implementation of new airplane models in different companies. I have great experience 
in running new flights to new destinations and new airports. I also have expertise in 
flight crossing over mountain ranges in South America and implementation of new 
[U.S] routes.... 
Though he has provided reference letters, they were not accompanied by corroborative evidence 
showing the impact of the Petitioner's work in the field, such as examples of the implementation of 
his piloting or training strategies, methodologies or innovations, or how the Petitioner's work has 
otherwise been recognized outside of organizations where he has been employed. In evaluating the 
evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately explained the nature of his specific contributions to the field 
of aviation, supported by documentary evidence. Rather, on appeal he reiterates that he is an 
accomplished pilot with many years of experience and references previously submitted evidence that 
demonstrates that he meets at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) . But 
he does not sufficiently address the final merits determination set forth under Kazarian or adequately 
explain how the Director erred in his analysis. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that he 
possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of aviation. 
3 
The Petitioner has not explained how his academic achievements, and his license, both required for 
entry into the profession, demonstrate his exceptional ability. The Petitioner is a highly qualified and 
well-trained pilot with many years of experience. However, this alone is insufficient to establish that 
the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner has not shown that he 
is as an individual of exceptional ability, and he has not asserted that he is an advanced degree 
professional. Therefore, the documentation in the record does not establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
As explained in the legal framework above, 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. 
Because the Petitioner has not established this threshold issue, the remainder of the Petitioner's 
arguments need not be addressed. It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds 
when another is dis positive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to reach whether he meets the three 
prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); see also Matter of L-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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, he has 
not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal will 
be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4