dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16709641 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
A self-petitioning pilot seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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 ofa labor certification. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for the underlying classification as a member of the professions or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, nor did the record establish his eligibility under any of the Dhanasar prongs. 
Although the Director granted the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, he 
ultimately determined that the Petitioner had not overcome the reasons for denial. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision and submits a brief and additional evidence in 
support of his claims. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver , a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interesi" 
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).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national 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 off er and thus of a labor 
certification. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Eligibility as an Individual with Exceptional Ability 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual with exceptional ability 
because the evidence established that he satisfied only two of the six criteria. Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had established that he possessed a professional license and 
membership, under subsections (C) and (E), respectively. Upon our de nova review, we agree with the 
Director's determination that the record does not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for the underlying 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, we arrive at this conclusion based on 
somewhat different reasoning than the Director. The Director found that the record established that 
the Petitioner had a membership in a professional association, whereas we concludethatthe evidence 
is insufficient to support such a finding. Additionally, we conclude that the record supports a finding 
that the Petitioner has at least ten years of experience in the occupation. 
An official academic record showing that the alien 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets the requirements of this criterion due to his Airline Transport Pilot 
License (ATPL), which cannot be obtained without aviation training that is commensurate with a Ph.D.­
level of education. The record contains evidence of an ATPL from bothl I andl I aviation 
authorities, along with documentation that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has verified 
the legitimacy of his I I ATPL. Accompanying his I ~ ATPL are various aviation trarngl 
certificates and scores issued by anl !airline, I I. In addition, an 
certification document contains the number of flying hours the Petitioner accrued from 1998 to 2015. 
Although these documents may comprise an academic record from an institution of learning relating to 
the area of exceptional ability, the Petitioner has not provided adequate documentation to establish this. 
Specifically, not all of the0documents are accompanied by English translations, nor has the Petitioner 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 20 l 9)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
3 
offered an explanation of the academic equivalency of this training. 4 Regarding the D training 
documents, it is unclear whether the Petitioner had an official aviation education from an institution of 
higher learning. The evidence suggests it is equally possible that the Petitioner received on-the-job 
training from the airline that hired him as a pilot. Accordingly, this training evidence does not 
persuasively establish his eligibility under this criterion. 
We reviewed the I I training documents reflecting FAA-approved education in the field 
of aviation, as well as the Petitioner's passing scores on the U.S. ATP exam, and a graduation certificate 
for completion of the ATP certification training program. The record reflects that the Petitioner 
underwent and passed exams for FAA-approved education in the year 2020, which occurred after this 
petition had already been filed. Therefore, even though this education could potentially serve as an 
official academic record relating to the field of endeavor, it would not establish his eligibility under this 
criterion at the time of filing. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrantvisapetitionand must continue to be eligible forthebenefitthrough adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). 
In addition, the Petitioner included his secondary school graduation records accompanied by an English 
translation of them. This education, however, is general and not readily related to the aviation field of 
endeavor. Finally, we reviewed a document that appears to be a report card or transcript reflecting some 
engineering education. Although requested, the Petitioner did not provide an English translation of 
this education document but describes it on his ETA 750 Part Bas two years of undergraduate studies 
in electronic engineering. The education document itself reflects completion of only five courses and 
civil engineering, rather than electronic, appears to be a more appropriate description of the program 
of study. Nevertheless, as there is no English translation for this document, it cannot be considered as 
a basis for eligibility under this criterion, nor is there evidence to suggest that the Petitioner completed 
his undergraduate studies. While the record reflects that the Petitioner is a well-trained pilot, it does 
not reflect that at the time of filing, the Petitioner possessed an official academic record showing that 
he 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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at leastten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
As previously mentioned, the record contains arQcertification of the Petitioner's flying hours from 
1998 to 2015. This document appears orC] letterhead, is signed by a staff relations official, and states 
thatthe Petitionerworkedforthe comrnv,ntil February 2015. Although the document does not contain 
the Petitioner's precise start date with a preponderance of the evidence establishes that his flying 
hours and employment withD began in 1998 and ended in 2015. In addition, the Petitioner included a 
February 3, 2020, service verification letter which states that beginning on June 17, 2015, the Petitioner 
began serving I I as a Captain (pilot) and was presently serving in that capacity as of the date of 
4 We acknowledge the FAA "advisoi:y circular" concerning how students with an aviation education from institutions of 
higher education and a certain number of flying hours may meet the eligililitJ requirements for an FAA ATP certificate. 
Despite th is document, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's training qualifies as an aviation education 
from an institution of higher learning. 
4 
the letter.5 As of the filing date of this petition, this letter establishes that the Petitioner had four years 
and three months of experience as a pilot withl l 6 Taken together, these letters are sufficient to 
establish that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation. Therefore, the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
As previously stated, the Petitioner presented evidence that he possesses an ATPL from both the 
I landl !aviation authorities. Accordingly, the evidence of record establishes that the 
Petitioner has satisfied th is criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner presented al I 2019 wage and salary income statement, a document which 
appears similar to the I I equivalent of a U.S. W-2 tax form. Although this document reflects that 
the Petitioner's 2019 "[g]ross payroll" was "201, 735.458," itisnotapparentfrom this document which 
currency this figure is in or what "[g]ross payroll" means. The record also contains the Petitioner's 
bank statement evidencing what appears to be a May 2020 direct deposit of $12,684.48 in U.S. dollars 
from thel l's third-party airline crew vendor. Although this appears to be the direct deposit 
for the Petitioner's salary, we do not know how frequently these wages are deposited into the 
Petitioner's bank account, nor do we have evidence that such deposits occurred prior to the filing of 
the petition. We conclude that this evidence does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's salary. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the Petitioner "has commanded a salary or 
remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others 
working in the field." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2). It appears logical and appropriate to 
consider the Petitioner's income based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in the foreign 
country in which it is earned, rather than by converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing 
whether that salary would be considered high in the United States. Here, the Petitioner appears to 
have earned his salary in I I We have little information concerning how the Petitioner's salaiy 
compares to other airline captains inl I We acknowledge the printout from the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, which states that as of May 2019, the median annual wage 
for U.S. airline pilots, copilots, and flight engineers was $147,220 and that the overall 2019 median 
pay for U.S. airline and commercial pilots was $121,430. However, this data is not particularly 
relevant if the Petitioner did not earn a salary in the United States. Even if he had earned a U.S. salary 
in U.S. dollars, the Petitioner would still be required to offer a sufficient basis for how the salary 
demonstrates exceptional ability. In other words, evidence that the Petitioner earns a salary above the 
median does not in itself establish that he commands a salary indicative of exceptional ability. 
5 The Petitioner also provided his employment contract, which indicates that he was contracted to serva I through 
a third-party aviation vendor and that he servesl I as an independent contractor rather than as an employee of 
eitherthe airline orthe third-pa[ty vendor. 
6 Another letterfroml I which relates to the Petitioner's safe flying record, indicates that the Petitioner served as 
a Captain until June 30, 2020. 
5 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's income or whether such 
income demonstrates exceptional ability. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The record contains a letter from which states that the Petitioner is a 
member of,___ __________ _,The letter also contains an explanation of the membership 
which includes that members receive discounted access to services from participating third parties and 
that members must hold either a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) or ATPL or be the spouse of someone 
who holds a CPL or ATPL. This information indicates that members need not be licensed pilots but 
simply married to one. As such, the evidence does not suggest that this is a professional association. 
Furthermore, the letter references numerous entities including al I 
I 11 land I I I I without acknowledging or explaining the differences in these entities. This variation raises 
questions as to the credibility of the letter and the true name of the association. Forth is additional reason, 
we conclude that this letter does not support a finding that the organization is professional in nature. 
The record also contains evidence that the Petitioner belongs to an association of airline pilots and that he 
has an identification card as evidence of his membership in this organization. After taking a 2009 
language examination, the association provided the Petitioner with an English language certification in 
accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization. Although the Petitioner stated in his 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) that he has been a member of this association since 
1998, the evidence of record does not substantiate this claim. From the documents, it is not apparent 
when he became a member or what is required for membership. Taking a language exam offered by the 
association does not establish membership in the association. Further, while the identification card may 
support a finding of membership in the association, it does not contain a date for when the Petitioner 
became a member or for how long membership continues, nor does the record contain supplementary 
evidence that explains membership requirements such that we might determine whether the association 
is professional in nature. 
Accordingly, although the Director found the Petitioner met this requirement, we conclude that the 
evidence is insufficient to establish membership in a professional association. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
The Petitioner submitted six letters of recommendation in which the authors praisethePetitioner's ability, 
experience, number of flying hours, and positive personal characteristics. We also note the opinion letter 
the Petitioner provides on appeal. The authors write about the significance of the Petitioner's personal 
accomplishments including his flying hours, that he achieved status as a captain in a challenging industry, 
and that he has gained experience in top-rated airlines that hold high standards. Many of the authors also 
note the rigorous examinations and proficiency tests that the Petitioner has passed, his career trajectory, 
and his talent. None of the letters, however, explain how the Petitioner's numerous personal 
accomplishments constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field of aviation. While his peers andcolleaguesmay offertheiropinionsasto his personal achievements, 
6 
they do not provide sufficient information concerning how such personal achievements affected the 
industry or field as a whole. For instance,! I described the Petitioner's scholarship 
achievements, goals in aviation, and his level of talent and competency, particularly in sustaining a career 
with the prestigious! I However I I does not identify how any of these examples 
are achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of aviation. Similarly I I 
I I offered his opinion that the Petitioner has achieved high ranking positions within multiple airlines, 
along with outstanding career success. Yet, his information does not illustrate how the Petitioner's 
personal success constitutes recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry. 
Although! ~tated that the Petitioner added benefit to the aviation industry due to his safe 
operations and flying, he does not explain how this is a significant contribution to the field. We presume 
that it is every pilot's responsibility to fly and operate an aircraft safely and so a record of success in this 
area does not set the Petitioner apart as a pilot with recognition in the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's safe flying record, we acknowledge a letter froml I in which the 
Petitioner performed as a Captain for five years withl I without any accidents, incidents, or air 
traffic control violations. While this is commendable and indeed a praise-worthy accomplishment, the 
Petitioner has not offered evidence to substantiate how this is an achievement or contribution to his field. 
We do not know, for instance, how many other pilots also reached such a milestone, how this success in 
safety is known about by others who are not acquainted with the Petitioner, or how this safety record is 
viewed with in the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner offered a narrative-style explanation of his accomplishments as a pilot, including examples 
of how he safely flew in challenging situations and made difficult real-time judgment calls that required 
him to rely upon his extensive training and experience. The Petitioner described his success as a pilot 
who has performed optimally despite poor weather conditions, emergency landings, long nighttime 
flights, and difficult take-offs and landings. In addition, the record contains evidence of numerous 
trainings, testing proficiencies, various licenses and certifications, as well as evidence that the Petitioner 
has accrued an impressive number of flying hours in his career. However, as explained previously, these 
personal accomplishments may be testaments to his skill, experience, and talent as a pilot, butthe record 
does not contain sufficient evidence that as a result of these circumstances the Petitioner has received 
recognition for achievements or contributions to the field of aviation. 
For all these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this 
criterion. 
Summary 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory criteria for 
exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).7 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility 
as an individual of exceptional abi I ity under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. As previously outlined, 
the Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional 
ability before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. While the record reflects that the 
7 When a petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria, a final merits determination concerning the Petitioner's 
eligibility is still required per the two-part adjudication framework established in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 
2010). In the final merits analysis, the quality oftheevidencemustbe evaluated. Here, a final merits analysis is not required 
because the Petitioner has not established that he has met at leastthreeof the six criteria. 
7 
Petitioner is a very highly qualified and well-trained pilot with a wealth of valuable experience, this 
alone is insufficient, as a petitioner must meet the specific eligibility requirements for the underlying 
classification of a national interest waiver. The Petitioner has not shown that he meets the regulatory 
criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and he has not asserted that he is an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the documentation in the record does not establish eligibility 
for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
B. The Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of 
the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who othetWise 
qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director made 
additional eligibility findings and the Petitioner alleges error in the Director's decision, we will provide 
additional analysis using the Dhanasar framework.8 
The Director determined that the Petitioner provided insufficient descriptions and documentary evidence 
to establish the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. First, the Petitioner 
proposes to contribute to the aviation industrybycontinuingto apply to jobs offered by major U.S. airlines 
like Delta, United, and American Airlines, which would allow him to continue his career as a Captain. 
He also intends to apply to jobs as a pilot for cargo carriers such as FedEx and UPS. His proposed 
endeavor also includes the possibility of serving as a pilot for low-cost carriers such as Spirit, Jet Blue, 
and Frontier. In addition, he has applied to positions as a flight simulator instructor and examiner in 
several flight training facilities and included this type of work as a project within his proposed endeavor 
as well. Finally, the Petitioner also proposes to serve as a pilot for private companies who run their own 
corporate flights. The Petitioner did not provide a timeline for when he would occupy each of these roles 
and it is notapparentwhethersecuring a position in any of these areas is the proposed endeavor or whether 
the proposed endeavor involves the Petitioner performing in all of these positions either simultaneously 
or consecutively. Based upon the information provided, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may be 
summarized as engaging in a U.S. job search within the field of aviation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner adds to his proposed endeavor with an entrepreneurial idea not previously 
articulated. He states that he also has plans to sell instruction packages to airlines abroad and that these 
packages include training at U.S. aviation facilities, arrangements for accommodation, transportation, as 
well as logistics for immigration, food, and spare time. 9 Although th is entrepreneurial idea is not entirely 
clear from the record, the Petitioner appears to intend to establish a "one stop shop" business whereby 
8 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. For instance, 
although we reviewed and acknowledge the previously submitted letters of recommendation and the opinion letter the 
Petitioner presents on appeal, the authors of these documents do not discuss or demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor and therefore these documents are of limited value in this analysis. 
9 As previously noted, USCI S regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on 
speculation offuture eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'lComm'r 1978). A petitionermaynotmakematerialchanges to a petition in an effort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCI S requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I &N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). Here, the Petitioner's entrepreneurialidea is new and additional rather than a clarification to the previously 
claimed proposed endeavor. 
8 
pilots may be trained and qualified in the United States, the facilitation of which is a service that the 
Petitioner believeswill benefit foreign and U.S. airlines, as well as the individual pilots' careers, and will 
also address pilot shortage issues. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation or explanation 
concerning how his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The purpose of 
the national interest waiver is not to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to engage in a job search or 
further his own career while only adding ancillary benefits to the nation. Although he has many ideas, it 
remains unclear as to what specifically his proposed endeavor involves aside from securing a job in the 
U.S. aviation industry. We do not know if he intends to perform all the functions he describes or whether 
he will perform in only the first job he secures. In addition, we have little clarity on which position, if 
any, he will obtain. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. While it may include one 
or more of the job ideas outlined above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not yet identified his specific 
endeavor. 
As part of his evidence of substantial merit, the Petitioner provided evidence of his own qualifications. 
Here, the Petitioner appears to confuse his own merit with the merit of the proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framewotk, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner also argues that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
because the United Statesfacesasignificantnational and potentially global pilotshortage. In addition, 
the Petitioner argues 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, as well as the challenges faced by airlines and pilots. While 
these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter, as none of 
them addresses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Initially we note that 
while the Petitioner mayfly nationally or internationally, 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 specific 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. Even 
assuming the Petitioner chooses to pursue his ideas concerning flight simulator training or his 
entrepreneurial services, 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 impactthe individual students, pilots, employers, or airlines that the Petitioner 
works with, the substantial merit and national importance of th is work has not been adequately explained 
or substantiated. Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did 
9 
not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient information and documentation regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot 
conclude that he meets either the first or second prong or that he has established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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. 
10