dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30338487 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
advanced degree professional, 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 had not 
established 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 I&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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief but does not add new evidence or arguments to directly 
confront the reasoning the Director provided in the decision. In the request for evidence (RFE) and 
the decision, the Director addressed many of the Petitioner's assertions regarding the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor and discussed multiple pieces of evidence individually. For 
example, the Director discussed the Petitioner's statements, as well as letters ofrecommendation and 
business plan, and the submitted articles and reports. The Director further identified numerous 
deficiencies in the evidence and explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the appeal brief does not claim 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The Petitioner did not provide any new evidence 
or arguments which overcome the Director's determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&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 the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 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 a business plan, testimonial letters, industry 
reports and articles and the claimed proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that his proposed endeavor's main goal is to "educate and provide 
new up and coming pilots with their certifications and licenses" which will have a positive impact in 
the economy by bringing new pilots into the aviation field in the United States, and safely transport 
people. However, the record does not adequately explain how these potential employment 
opportunities will be realized. Nor did the record sufficiently show through supporting documentation 
how the Petitioner's services and improvements stand 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. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show 
that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 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. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-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). 
2