dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 16, 2023 In Re: 28599615 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an "airline pilot first officer/captain" who seeks employment-based 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center determined that despite qualifying for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree, 1 the Petitioner did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. Specifically, applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner: (1) did not establish 
that his endeavor has national importance, 2 (2) did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to 
advance the endeavor, and (3) did not show that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would 
benefit the United States. 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 ofChristo '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 
specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the 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 two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-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). 
1 The record contains degree certificates and corresponding transcripts showing that the Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor 
of Sc~ence deree and a Master of Science degree in May and December 2018, respectively. Both degrees were awarded 
by th Institute of Technology . 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner 's endeavor was shown to have substantial merit. 
In addressing the issue of national importance, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence that his proposed endeavor would have a positive impact on, for instance, the U.S. 
economy or job market. Although the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of support 
letters and industry articles about the shortage of pilots in the United States, these submissions were 
deemed insufficient for the purpose of demonstrating national importance. The Director determined 
that the support letters did not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would benefit the 
United States or broadly impact the aviation field; the Director further noted that labor shortages are 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through though the labor certification process and thus 
they are not a compelling reason to grant a national interest waiver. The Director also pointed out that 
in conducting a first-prong analysis of national importance, we focus on the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor, rather than the importance of the field or profession in which the Petitioner will work. 
Having considered the Petitioner's endeavor to work as a commercial pilot, the Director determined 
that the impact of that endeavor would be limited to the Petitioner's employers and would not broadly 
impact the aviation industry or offer benefits at the national level. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director "applied a stricter standard of proof'' when reviewing 
the record. We note, however, that 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 (AAO 2010); see also Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 
1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, 
"preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest waiver petitions. 
See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the 
Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the EB-2 
classification and a national interest waiver, he does not further explain or identify a specific instance 
in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying 
the petition. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director disregarded two expert opinion letters and "ignored 
the regulation by finding that the evidence submitted does not support [the Petitioner's] statements." 
The Petitioner did not identify the regulations he claimed the Director ignored, nor did he explain how 
the contents of the expert opinion letters from a rofessional pilot, orl I 
I I an associate professor in aerospace engineering at ~------~University, support the 
Petitioner's claim that his endeavor to work as a commercial pilot is of national importance. In fact, 
the latter opinion discusses the shortage of commercial pilots, underscoring the benefits of civil 
aviation as well as the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. I µid not, however, 
explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would address any industry shortages, which, as the 
Director stated, can best be addressed through the labor certification process. And although DI I adequately established the importance of air transportation and its national and global impact, 
she did not discuss the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Likewise.I Idiscussion 
of civil aviation's positive economic effects does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would 
result in a comparable impact. 
.________.lopinion, despite listing a pilot's responsibilities to illustrate the pilot's "crucial function 
in the aviation industry," does not explain how the role of a single pilot impacts the aviation industry 
more broadly; nor didl Idiscuss the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's 
endeavor to work as a commercial pilot to establish that the endeavor has "national or even global 
2 
I 
implications within a particular field" thus rising to the level of national importance. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Rather,I !primarily focused on the importance of global 
aviation and its impact on trade, tourism, and world economies, but he did not explain how the imractl 
of the Petitioner's specific endeavor would extend beyond his prospective employers. And while 
I claimed that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial positive economic effects, he did not 
support this claim with a discussion of the Petitioner's specific endeavor; instead, he continued with a 
broader discussion of aviation's impact as "the only worldwide transportation network," highlighting 
the cumulative impact of "air transportation workers" and the projected growth statistics of pilots, 
copilots, and flight engineers. 
Lastly, the Petitioner assert that his response to a request for evidence included research that supports 
the national importance of his endeavor. However, as with I I statements, the Petitioner 
highlights the "pilots' critical contributions" to the transportation industry and national economy, thus 
indicating that he broadly considered the cumulative impact of pilots in general rather than focusing 
on his specific endeavor and explaining how his work as a commercial pilot stands to broadly impact 
the transportation industry or the national economy. As correctly pointed out in the Director's 
decision, a first-prong analysis of national importance focuses on the Petitioner's specific endeavor, 
rather than the importance of the field or profession of that endeavor. In the matter at hand, the 
Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor to be a commercial pilot stands to have 
broader implications on the aviation industry or the United States. 
In sum, the Petitioner does not establish that the previously submitted evidence, some of which has 
been resubmitted on appeal, corroborates the claim that his endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 
Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national 
importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and 
affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely 
confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding 
that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3