dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 8, 2024 In Re: 31526766 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement and labor certification would be in the national 
interest. We adopted and affirmed the Director's analysis regarding the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor and dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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 ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his proposed endeavor of continuing employment as a commercial pilot had the 
economic, cultural, or social impact necessary to establish national importance as outlined by the first 
prong of Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on Matter of Chawathe and US. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) to assert 
that the appropriate standard of proof in a benefit request is preponderance of the evidence. The 
Petitioner submits a brief from counsel, a new personal statement and evidence provided with the prior 
appeal. The Petitioner asserts that these new facts establish eligibility, as they highlight his potential 
positive impact on the aviation industry in the United States. 
The Petitioner states on motion that the AAO did not apply the appropriate standard of proof when 
evaluating the evidence that his current and future proposed endeavor working as a commercial airline 
pilot would be in the national interest. The Petitioner did not identify the alternative standard of proof 
that the AAO used but argues, generally, that we did not give appropriate weight to the submitted 
evidence. 
In his personal statement on motion, the Petitioner argues that his training as a pilot and advanced 
degree in Flight Test Engineering would aide the aerospace industry through the design and 
development of aircraft as well as flight testing. The Petitioner's assertions on motion regarding his 
potential employment as an aerospace engineer are speculative in that they are not tied to one specific 
endeavor but to the possibility that, in the future, he may choose to pursue a career in aerospace 
engineering. Moreover, at the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated his endeavor was to complete 
training as a commercial pilot and work in that field. A petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 T&N Dec. 114 
(BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Id. at 176. 
The Petitioner states that his role as a commercial airline pilot would have broader implications in his 
field because it would address a critical workforce shortage and contribute to the industry's growth 
and sustainability. Both the Director and the AAO addressed the Petitioner's argument regarding 
workforce shortages by concluding that the labor certification process managed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor was established to address worker shortages for specific industries, locations, 
and occupations with a shortage of qualified U.S. workers. The Petitioner's claim that his role as a 
commercial pilot is nationally important due to a shortage of qualified workers fails to address why 
he is unable to seek labor certification through a qualifying job offer as Congress intended. 
The Petitioner also claims that through his work as a pilot he will "contribute to job creation and 
economic growth because a robust aviation sector creates employment opportunities" for "crew 
positions and jobs in research, development, manufacturing, and maintenance." The Petitioner does 
not offer any objective evidence supporting his assertion that his endeavor to work as a commercial 
airline pilot for a specific airline will create a "robust aviation sector" or provide evidence of the 
specific jobs that would be created because of his employment as a commercial airline pilot. 
We acknowledge the submission of articles regarding the aviation sector, including articles related to 
the pilot shortage in the United States. We also acknowledge the resubmission of the expert opinion 
letters from S-S-, an Aerospace Engineering professor at and R-T-, a 
professional pilot. As addressed in our prior decision, the letters provide insight into the aviation 
industry as a whole and briefly touch on the Petitioner's qualifications to work as a commercial pilot, 
however, the letters do not provide specific information related to the impact of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. For example, R-T- provides broad statements meant to highlight the Petitioner's impact on 
the aviation industry such as, the Petitioner's work "will continually improve American aviation safety 
2 
and reduce the risk of fatalities." This statement is not supported with any analysis regarding the 
Petitioner's record on flight safety or in what ways American aviation as a whole would be improved 
by the Petitioner through his work as a commercial pilot. Similarly, R-T- writes that the Petitioner 
"will create an impact on society by making it possible for travelers to explore the world." This 
statement could be made of any individual working in the transportation industry and is not evidence 
that the Petitioner's work would benefit anyone beyond the airline he works for or the passengers on 
his specific flights. These generalized statements citing to industry wide data do not provide the 
probative evidence necessary to establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be nationally 
important. We do not dispute the importance of the aviation industry in the United States or its integral 
part in the overall economy. However, the Petitioner has not established that his specific role as a 
commercial airline pilot working for a specific airline has the ability to impact the aviation industry as 
a whole and rise to the level of national importance. 
As stated by the Director in the initial decision and by the AAO on appeal, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the 
individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look 
for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 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. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3