dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 34600793 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish their eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
combined motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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). 
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). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the 
prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings (the dismissal of the 
appeal). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the 
analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We 
explained that, although upon de novo review, we determined that the Petitioner's endeavor of 
continuing his work as a pilot and pilot instructor is substantially meritorious, we agreed with the 
Director that the record did not establish his endeavor is nationally important as contemplated in 
Dhanasar. Id. And, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, we determined that the Director did 
properly consider the evidence under a preponderance of the evidence standard. 
We also evaluated the Petitioner's claims and evidence establishing the importance of the airline 
industry, including various articles and reports, and explained that, although they supported the 
substantial merit of his endeavor, they did not discuss his specific endeavor and therefore did not 
establish the prospective impact of his endeavor would rise to the level of national importance as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. See id. ( explaining the determination of national importance "focuses on 
the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"). And, while we acknowledged 
the Petitioner's experience within his field, we explained that these letters and his past 
accomplishments did not establish the broader implications or national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. Additionally, we addressed the documentation submitted regarding the airline pilot 
shortage, and his assertion that he would alleviate this shortage through his proposed training 
programs. However, we explained that a labor shortage in a field alone does not generally render a 
proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework, because labor shortages are 
addressed through the labor certification process. We also determined that, like the petitioner's 
teaching activities in Dhanasar, the Petitioner's training did not impact the field more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national important. 
Moreover, we agreed with the Director that the record did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would 
result in substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar 
at 890. We addressed the Petitioner's contentions on appeal and specific references to statistics 
relating to the economic importance of the airline industry, but we explained that he did not establish 
that his specific endeavor would result in economic effects commensurate with national importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence and asserts that his motion to 
reconsider is predicated on our "clear misunderstanding of critical elements surrounding [his] 
proposed endeavor, and the significant contributions his work is projected to make within the aviation 
sector and beyond"; however, he does not discuss how we misunderstood the record, or address the 
conclusions made in our appellate decision regarding the limited implications of his proposed 
endeavor. Instead, he continues to rely on the same claims previously addressed in our appellate 
decision. Specifically, that his endeavor will result in economic impact and drive growth in the 
aviation industry, address the pilot shortage, and "improve training efficiency and enhance overall 
operational safety, thereby fostering significant economic benefits." For example, the Petitioner refers 
to his business plan and his intention to develop multi-crew operations (MCO) and multi-crew 
cooperation (MCC) courses, and asserts that by implementing these programs, he will facilitate rapid 
and efficient training for low-experienced pilots, resulting in substantial economic impacts and the 
creation of new jobs in the aviation sector. And the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor aligns closely 
with federal initiatives aimed at strengthening the aviation industry and maintaining safe and efficient 
travel. Yet, we addressed these claims in our decision and explained that the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's training programs would impact his field at a level commensurate with national 
importance or otherwise result in substantial economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar. The 
Petitioner's motion does not address these conclusions nor establish that they are erroneous. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our 
appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred 
2 
as a matter of law or policy. 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 0-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). Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision, and 
the combined motions 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