dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2024 In Re: 34549443 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a commercial pilot and flight instructor, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The next issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest under the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to work 
as a pilot in the United States, noting that he would "pilot and navigate the flight of fixed-wing aircraft 
on nonscheduled air carrier routes, or helicopters." In a professional plan and statement submitted in 
support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that he intends "to continue using [his] expertise and 
knowledge working in the aviation field in the United States," noting that he "can help fill the many and 
alarming number of Pilot positions in the U.S., as well as train others in the field, whether experienced 
pilots or new professionals entering the field." He emphasized that his proposed endeavor is to offer his 
expertise and use his skills and knowledge gained through his professional experience to pursue positions 
within the U.S. aviation industry, and further claimed that by offering his training and coaching expertise, 
he can help alleviate the tremendous industry shortage. 
The Petitioner also submitted his resume, recommendation letters, an expert opinion letter, and copies 
of articles and reports pertaining to the aviation industry. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide further information 
and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor in the United States. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted an updated professional plan and statement, discussing his educational background and 
reciting his experience in the industry and the manner in which such experience has imparted expertise 
to him in the field. He further explained that his experience in the field of commercial aviation and 
his proficiency in aeronautical sciences would benefit U.S. aviation companies, again noting that his 
experience as both a pilot and a flight instructor would help alleviate the shortage of commercial and 
private airline pilots in the United States. The Petitioner also provided further information pertaining 
to the U.S. aviation industry and the aviation industry's effect on the U.S. economy, including 
additional industry articles discussing the nature and status of the U.S. aviation industry. 
Additionally, a letter from the Petitioner's counsel submitted in response to the RFE discusses the 
industry articles and reports submitted in support of the assertion that the Petitioner's expertise in the 
industry could potentially mitigate the shortage of pilots nationwide. According to counsel, the 
2 
Petitioner is well qualified to serve both as a pilot and flight instructor based on his nearly 30 years of 
experience in the field and his numerous certifications and professional licenses and, as a result, his 
endeavor will lessen the effects on the pilot shortage within the U.S. aviation industry. Counsel further 
claimed that the Petitioner's endeavor will substantially benefit the U.S. economy, U.S. societal 
welfare, and overall national interests, considering the widespread importance of the aviation industry. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit, he had not established the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor, noting that he had not shown that his proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States. The Director 
further determined that the Petitioner had not shown that the benefits to the national economy resulting 
from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
national importance of his work, and that the Director's decision was in error because it "applied a 
stricter standard" of proof. With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must 
establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 3 75-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has 
met his burden under the preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner further relies on the shortage of pilots in the U.S. aviation industry, and asserts that his 
proposed work as both a pilot and flight instructor will be in the national interest of the United States 
given the need for qualified individuals in the aviation industry due to such shortages. He claims that 
beyond filling a vacant pilot role, his ability to also serve as a flight instructor will help fill additional 
vacancies in the industry by training new pilots. In conclusion, the Petitioner claims that his proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and national importance because it "addresses significant challenges in the 
U.S. aviation sector, notably the critical pilot shortage and its broader economic implications." 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner proposes to contribute to the aviation industry by applying 
for jobs as a pilot with various U.S. airlines. His proposed endeavor also includes serving as a flight 
instructor. The Petitioner did not provide a timeline for when he would occupy each of these roles 
and it is not apparent whether securing a position in either of these areas is the proposed endeavor or 
whether the proposed endeavor involves the Petitioner performing these roles simultaneously or 
consecutively. Overall, we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with 
which to determine whether it has both substantial merit and national importance because the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined. Despite the Director's finding to the 
contrary, the Petitioner has not submitted persuasive evidence to support a finding of substantial merit. 
The Petitioner bears the burden to both affirmatively establish eligibility under the Dhanasar framework, 
of which substantial merit is one piece, and establish his eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
3 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "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. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
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. 
While the Petitioner, as a pilot, may fly nationally or internationally for private or commercial U.S. 
airlines, simply having a global route does not establish that the endeavor has a global impact. To the 
extent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor can be understood, we conclude that he has not 
substantiated how his work in the aviation industry will address a pilot shortage or positively impact 
the economy. Specifically, how one pilot will improve a national shortage or will trigger substantial 
positive economic impacts has not been explained. Alternatively, assuming the Petitioner chooses to 
pursue his ideas concerning working as a flight instructor, which may affect others' careers in addition 
to his own, he has not provided sufficient information of how his services in these areas would rise to 
the level of national importance. While such endeavors may impact the individual students, pilots, 
employers, or airlines that the Petitioner works with, the national importance of this work has not been 
adequately explained or substantiated. Similarly, 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. 
The Petitioner also claims that his proposed endeavor has national importance because the United 
States faces a significant national and potentially global pilot shortage. 2 In addition, counsel for the 
Petitioner highlights the fact that the Petitioner's career "aligns with the STEM (Science, Technology, 
Engineering, or Mathematics) fields, as recognized in the DHS STEM Designated Degree Program 
List." With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(2), https://uscis.gov/policymanual. Thus, simply pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does 
not automatically demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver. In this case, the Petitioner does 
not intend to advance STEM technologies and research. Rather, the Petitioner seeks employment as 
a pilot or aviation instructor. Here, the Petitioner has not established how his individual employment 
would affect national aviation employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with 
national importance. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to his background, education, and experience in his field, 
noting on appeal that he has extensive professional experience evidenced by his extensive flight 
training, flight hours, memberships, and certificates. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience 
in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from 
the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under the second 
consideration of Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
2 It is impo1iant to note that the shortage of pilots, as well as aviation instrnctors, does not render the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor nationally imp01iant under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor ce1iification process. 
4 
satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner asserts that pilots and the field of aviation are extremely important to the economy and 
that his proposed endeavor will offer substantial positive economic impacts. In support of both his 
arguments concerning pilot shortages and positive economic impacts, he offered numerous articles 
about the flight industry, its economic implications, and the challenges faced by airlines and pilots. 
While these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter, 
as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor is unclear.3 Furthermore, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the 
individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Id. at 889. As discussed above, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is 
insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence and 
failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies primarily 
upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate 
claims, we nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
For example, while the Petitioner submitted numerous letters of recommendation from other pilots and 
colleagues in the field, none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor. 
Instead, the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past work experience and accomplishments. 
Although the record contains statements regarding the Petitioner's lengthy career in the aviation 
industry, and although the letter writers praise the Petitioner's qualifications and commend his work, 
we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor with which to 
make a determination concerning its substantial merit and national importance. Here, the Petitioner 
has not identified how much time he will spend working as a pilot as opposed to working as a flight 
instructor. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of 
the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N at 889. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter from a professor in the aviation department at 
I who recites the Petitioner's career history and 
accomplishments and praises his success as a pilot in the Latin American aviation industry. The 
3 We further note that the Petitioner's counsel refers to these reports and articles throughout the record, asserting that the 
status of the U.S. aviation industry impacts many different industries, such as U.S. trade and commercial operations. On 
appeal, counsel emphasizes the Petitioner's experience in the field and generally asserts that his proposed endeavor to 
work as a pilot and flight instructor will alleviate the pilot shortage and help the national economy by allowing the 
uninterrupted movement of people, business, and cargo. However, assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits 
and declarations. 
5 
I 
professor opines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally important due to the aviation 
industry's significance to the U.S. economy and the demand for commercial pilots in the country. 
However, this opinion is based primarily on the importance of the aviation field. Furthermore, the 
professor does not address the Petitioner's endeavor in its entirety, which involves more than being a 
pilot but also providing training and instruction. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements 
submitted by a petitioner as advisory but, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or 
is questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that opinion). See Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 375-76. Moreover, as stated above, the Petitioner's past professional endeavors are the focus of 
Dhanasar 's second prong, when we examine whether he is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information and documentation regarding his 
proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework. Since 
the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 of 
L-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6