dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 29, 2024 In Re: 31507626 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability or is eligible for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us 
on a motion to reconsider. 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). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The Director found that the record satisfied at least three of the six exceptional criteria at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). However, the Director determined that the Petitioner "does not have a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business" and, thus, 
did not establish exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In our prior decision, which we 
hereby incorporate by reference, we determined that the record did not establish that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, and we 
therefore reserved our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility 
criteria. We analyzed the appeal under the relevel national interest waiver law discussed in Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; 
therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We reserved our opinion regarding whether 
I 
the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the 
record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prongs. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief which includes many of the same arguments made on appeal. 
The Petitioner also includes three new pay statements, information from the Petitioner's employer's 
website, a course completion certificate from I Iand information from the 
Iwebsite. The Petitioner again references his job title ( commercial pilot and 
flight instructor), proposed endeavor, training and licensing as a pilot, and employment experience as 
a pilot over the last decade. 
The Petitioner asserts that we failed to address issues raised on appeal, including the Director not 
applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. With respect to the standard of proof in this 
matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by 
a preponderance of the evidence. See 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a 
petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). On appeal, the Petitioner did not specifically identify statements in the 
Director's decision regarding national importance applying a higher standard of proof or imposing 
novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner asserts that we failed to appropriately apply the national importance standard. The 
Petitioner asserts that we failed to recognize the national and global implications of his proposed 
endeavor, which will result in the development and expert training of countless pilots and a ripple 
effect in pilot talent across airlines and local economies. The Petitioner cites to previously submitted 
recommendation and employment offer letters and claims that we failed to consider them. He states 
that while Dhanasar referred to certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as 
having national or global implications, comparable advancements like training of pilots nationally, 
which positively impacts the aviation industry, should be accepted. The Petitioner states that the 
Director erred in finding his work will only benefit his future employer and clients, and placed too 
much weight on whether he will create jobs. He asserts that he will impact the U.S. economy through 
job fulfillment. The Petitioner references his experience landing flights at airports surrounded by 
difficult terrain and his heroism in landing a dangerous flight. He claims that he impacted the aviation 
industry on a global scale by involvement in organizations that changed the material and content used 
to train pilots and how pilots obtained their education in Honduras. He then states that his prior 
contributions to the field were of national importance in Honduras, and the Director ignored the 
contents of a Honduran Air Force captain's recommendation letter. Next, the Petitioner asserts the 
demand for pilots in the United States is a highly important part of the analysis that should have been 
given more weight, as the nation will experience undue economic hardship if the shortage is not fixed. 
The Petitioner cites to previously submitted 2020 Federal Aviation Administration and 2022 Regional 
Airline Association reports on the economic impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy, and he 
asserts that a robust aviation industry is being limited by shortage. 
In our prior decision, we discussed how the record did not establish that the generalized plan to pilot 
aircrafts and train other pilots would have the type of "national or even global implications within a 
2 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances" and broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 889-90. We mentioned that 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." Id. at 889. We also discussed the Petitioner's references to his prior work 
experience and its importance abroad, in the past, as being immaterial to determining whether the 
proposed endeavor may have national importance. An individual'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. Id. at 889-90. However, a discussion of the Petitioner's prior 
experience and its importance abroad does not address how the specific, prospective endeavor may 
have national importance in the United States. Id. We thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's claims 
on appeal under the relevant Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner has not provided any legal basis for 
our findings being incorrect. 
The Petitioner cites to Matter ofE-J-C-D-H- where we determined the products the petitioner in that 
case developed and manufactured were sold by distributors across the nation and they offered 
environmental benefits over existing products. He asserts that his case is similar in that he will provide 
services to passengers across the nation and his services are superior to other pilots. Matter of 
E-J-C-D-H- was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § l 03 .3( c ). 
The Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. Our prior decision properly 
analyzed the Petitioner's assertions, which he again makes on motion. The Petitioner cannot meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must 
demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party seeks 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3