dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 12, 2024 In Re: 29357319 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic in the aviation industry, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 classification. 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 established 
he was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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. 
The Petitioner intends to operate a business that will provide both corrective and preventive aircraft 
maintenance services, and ancillary services such as consulting and training. The Petitioner also stated 
that he will alleviate the tremendous aviation industry shortage of aviation mechanics by offering his 
training expertise to the U.S. aviation market to include, among others, airlines, companies, training 
centers, and flight schools. The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a 
brief which generally reiterates the benefits of his profession, his qualifications, and the claimed 
economic impacts of his proposed business and contends that he has established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor but does not provide any new evidence or arguments which 
overcome the Director's determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 l&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 this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar, including his 
submission of industry reports and articles relating to the importance of entrepreneurism in the United 
States and the growth of the aviation industry, his job experience and skills, and the economic impact 
of his ownership of a company. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than 
the importance of aircraft mechanics, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration. 1 The 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; 
instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 
889. Further, "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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did not sufficiently 
review all evidence. Specifically, he asserts the Director did not sufficiently consider his business 
plan, recommendation letters, industry reports and articles, and resume. However, in the decision, the 
Director discussed the Petitioner's qualifications and experience, as well as specifically referenced 
and analyzed the business plan, the recommendation letter, and industry reports and articles. Although 
the Petitioner states the Director did not consider the Petitioner's vast contributions in the field, he 
does not identify what these contributions are or how they affected the field. The Petitioner does not 
explain what specific content the Director failed to consider or how the record contains evidence that 
overcomes the Director's analysis and findings. Therefore, we do not find support for the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did not properly review all evidence. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor, including operating his own business, sufficiently extends beyond his company 
and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national 
importance. In Dhanasar, 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. 
Here, the Petitioner suggested that by filling an aircraft mechanic position, he will directly benefit the 
aviation industry and the general public by ensuring secure and reliable air transportation. He further 
claimed his endeavor would enhance and improve the aviation industry in the United States that would 
result in ripple effects on trade, tourism, and the U.S. economy, and would address the nationwide 
shortage of aviation mechanics. However, the Director determined, and we agree, that he has not 
substantiated how one mechanic will alleviate a national labor shortage, trigger substantial positive 
economic benefits, or otherwise have potential prospective impacts at a level commensurate with 
national importance. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his business 
1 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
2 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . Furthermore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Id. at 890. The 
petition will remain denied. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 2 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See 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). 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) 
(declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3