dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 21, 2025 In Re: 36242853 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner established 
he was an advanced degree professional, but did not demonstrate that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. Specifically, applying the 
three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), the 
Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance 
and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 1 The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded the preponderance of the evidence 
standard "by either undervaluing critical evidence or imposing an excessively high burden of proof." 
He also contends that the evidence submitted demonstrates his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 2 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to Dhanasar's first prong. 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 affinning the decision below "is not only common 
practice, but universally accepted"). 
1 The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
2 The Petitioner submitted additional documents with his appeal, but this evidence was already contained in the record . 
We have reviewed the record and agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The record 
does not show that his future work would sufficiently extend beyond his clientele and students to 
impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance. See 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. While the Petitioner reiterates the importance of aviation 
safety and survival training as "critical elements of public welfare and national infrastructure," in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work. Instead, the focus is on the "specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The Petitioner also has not demonstrated how his 
proposed endeavor would have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects, such as through income or tax revenue, for the region or our 
nation. Id. at 890. 
Despite his arguments on appeal, the Petitioner does not identify what "critical evidence" was not 
properly considered or explain why that evidence would show he satisfied Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also has not pointed to specific examples of where the Director imposed an incorrect 
standard of proof. Without more, the Petitioner's appellate claims do not persuade us of any error in 
the Director's decision. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by Dhanasar 's first prong, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs, therefore, 
would serve no meaningful purpose . See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) 
(holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2