dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation Mechanics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 28566519 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aviation mechanic, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 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 the Petitioner qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and 
that a discretionary 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. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Because 
this classification requires that the individual 's services be sought by a United States employer, a 
separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national 
interest. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A United States bachelor's degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the 
equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [ noncitizen] has a degree, 
diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, 
or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [ noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other 
renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 If a petitioner does so, we will then consider the totality of the material provided in a 
final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the petitioner is recognized as 
having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. See Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is 
first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish eligibility for a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional 
ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an aviation mechanic. The Director of the 
Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that they 
qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that although the Petitioner 
met at least three out of six criteria-an official academic record showing completion of an 
aeronautical electronics degree, at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation, and 
acquisition of certifications and licenses related to the proposed endeavor-the record lacked evidence 
that the Petitioner's professional achievements set them apart from other aviation mechanics to show 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field as required to 
establish exceptional ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision had "erroneous conclusions of law and 
fact." The Petitioner further argues that they have submitted "ample evidence" to demonstrate by a 
preponderance of the evidence their exceptional ability and that they merit a national interest waiver. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner states that they submitted evidence 
to meet all six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We agree with the Director's 
decision that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the six required criteria. Because the Petitioner 
met at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we will evaluate the totality 
of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that in finding the Petitioner unqualified for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability after a final merits determination, the Director failed to address the 
record as a whole and rather treated "each piece of the exceptional ability puzzle individually in its 
analysis." Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the correct question for the Director was "whether, taken 
as a whole, the record warrants such a finding on a preponderance of the evidence standard" that the 
Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that of ordinary aviation mechanics. In 
support, the Petitioner argues that the record reflects their "(1) Aeronautical Electronics Degree from 
an academic institution sanctioned by the Colombian military, (2) nearly two decades of experience 
as an A via ti on Mechanic serving in the Colombian military, (3) a dozen certifications covering several 
different types of aircrafts, including a license to practice his trade granted by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), (4) membership in professional associations in the field such as the 
International Helicopter Association (HAI), (5) a history of earning an exceptionally high salary 
relative to his peers, (6) letters of recommendation from his peers in both the public and private sector 
chronicling I I success in every facet of his career [sic]." 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, we conclude nonetheless that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how (1) their degree; (2) work experience; (3) certifications and license; and (4) 
membership in professional associations sets them apart from other aviation mechanics to show a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field. For example, the 
3 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how their record compares with aviation mechanics with the same 
degree, experiences, and certifications, licenses, and memberships. 
In regard to work experience, we acknowledge the Petitioner's statement that they were recognized as 
one of the "most elite class of Colombian Aviation Mechanics" and received the title of "First 
Technician." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the bases upon which those superlatives 
were awarded. For example, it is unclear whether they were granted due to years of employment 
and/or service in the Colombian military, or to acknowledge the Petitioner's expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered in their field. Absent that information, we cannot meaningfully 
ascertain how those superlatives should factor in our final merits determination. 
Nor are the Petitioner's assertions regarding having maintained a high salary relative to their peers 
sufficient, as the Petitioner did not demonstrate how their salary compares with similarly-situated 
aviation mechanics. 
The Petitioner provides some letters that discussed the Petitioner's education, certifications, and years 
of service in the Colombian military as an aviation mechanic. While these letters confirm the 
Petitioner's employment and praise their skills and abilities, they do not demonstrate how the 
Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their 
occupation or otherwise signify exceptional ability as an aviation mechanic. Nor has the Petitioner 
demonstrated that their work has had an impact beyond their employer and their specific duties as an 
aviation mechanic at a level indicative of achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field. 
The record as a whole, including the specific evidence discussed above, does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. Although the Petitioner has satisfied at 
least three of the initial categories of evidence, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
obtained a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or 
business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Since the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, we do 
not need to address the issue of whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. However, in order to provide the 
Petitioner with a more complete decision we will discuss the matter briefly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), and maintains that the record demonstrates that their proposed 
endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner farther states that the proposed endeavor will 
"broadly enhance societal welfare," impact "a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or is the subject of national initiatives," and that it "has the significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." 
4 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
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. Further, 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 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner's statements reflect their intention to obtain employment as an aviation mechanic, the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of their proposed endeavor rises to the level o f national importance. 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. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that their proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond their 
employer to impact the aviation mechanic field, the aviation industry, or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor they propose to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for the United States. For instance, the Petitioner submitted documentation showing past work 
experience ad Iand that they have secured a position with I Ito work 
as an aviation mechanic. Nevertheless , the Petitioner has not demonstrated how their employment at 
lwill translate into economic benefits for the United States, nor that their employment 
stands to have national implications within the field. The Petitioner claims that there is an aviation 
mechanics shortage with the airline industry, and that aviation mechanics do not appear to be readily 
available. However, the record does not show that the Petitioner's employment atl lwill 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
5 
I 
result in a broad impact on the aviation industry or the aviation mechanic field. The first prong's focus 
is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that their 
specific endeavor- to work as an aviation mechanic- has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong . Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation attributable to their work, the record does not show that benefits to their employer or regional 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's service as an aviation mechanic would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly , the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the Dhanasar framework 's first prong . 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding their 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 ofL-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 they have not established they are eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6