dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 32570800 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic in the aviation industry, 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. § 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. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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. 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we noted that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
involved the operation of a business that would provide "both corrective and preventive aircraft 
maintenance services, and ancillary services such as consulting and training" and that the Petitioner 
stated that he would "alleviate the tremendous 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." We concluded that the Director's decision thoroughly reviewed, 
discussed, and analyzed the record, including the Petitioner's submission of industry reports and 
articles regarding the importance of entrepreneurship in the United States and the growth of the 
aviation industry, evidence of his job experience and skills, and the economic impact of his proposed 
endeavor when concluding that the Petitioner had not established its national importance. We 
addressed the Petitioner's arguments that his endeavor would alleviate a national labor shortage of 
aviation mechanics and would result in substantial positive economic benefits at a level commensurate 
with national importance. However, we concluded, upon review of the totality of the record, that he 
had not offered sufficient evidence to support these assertions. We then adopted and affirmed the 
Director's decision and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Director correctly concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) (providing a 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions and requiring that the petitioner 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance as the first 
prong of this analytical framework.). Because the identified reasons for dismissal were dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we declined to reach the remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under 
the Dhanasar framework. 1 
On combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief. He first argues that the 
Director did not fully consider all of the evidence and arguments presented with his initial petition and 
with his response to the Director's request for evidence and that, because of this, the Director violated 
the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He contends that had the Director properly 
considered this evidence, the Director would have concluded that the record established the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the classification sought. The Petitioner next contends that our decision was 
deficient as it did not consider every argument that he presented on appeal and asserts that each of 
these arguments demonstrates a clear link between this proposed endeavor and national importance. 
Although the Petitioner argues that the Director did not folly consider all the evidence and arguments 
in support of his petition and thus erred in finding him ineligible for the classification sought, our 
review on motion is limited to our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). In our prior decision, 
we reviewed the record and concluded that the Director's decision considered and thoroughly analyzed 
all the evidence and claims concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor, and it correctly concluded 
the Petitioner had not established its national importance. The Petitioner asserts that if we had 
considered every argument presented on appeal, we would have concluded that he had established his 
eligibility for the classification sought and that a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted in 
waiving the job offer requirement and thus of the labor certification. The Petitioner does not specify 
which of his appellate arguments we failed to address or explain how our failure to do so resulted in a 
deficient decision. He therefore has not offered sufficient support for his assertion on motion or 
demonstrated how our decision was based upon an incorrect application of law or policy at the time it 
was issued. 
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. The Petitioner has also not 
submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen that demonstrates eligibility for the 
requested benefit. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3