dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Flight Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 34829555 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a manager in curriculum design for flight training, 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 Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not establish his underlying eligibility for EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, and furthermore that he did not 
establish he merited a national interest waiver. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&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: 
• 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. 
1 See Brasil v. Sec'y ofDHS, 28 F.4th 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2022) (concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a 
national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish his underlying eligibility for EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, and 
furthermore that he did not establish any of the three prongs under the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
specifically that his proposed endeavor was nationally important; that he was well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit 
the United States. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director 
erred in its conclusion that he was not an advanced degree professional and furthermore asserts that 
he meets all three of the Dhanasar prongs and merits a national interest waiver. For the following 
reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and will therefore dismiss his appeal. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, regarding substantial merit and national 
importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, we consider the proposed endeavor's "potential prospective 
impact," and "look for broader implications." Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. Further, "[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. 
In support of his Form I-140, the Petitioner provided, in part, a statement wherein he explained his 
proposed endeavor is to become a flight training consultant in the United States whereby he could help 
airlines, flight training organizations, and freight carriers to develop their own competency-based 
training and assessment (CBTA) programs for flight and have them accredited. He claimed that the 
United States is facing a pilot shortage crisis, and that development of flight training programs would 
provide a competent workforce and improve aviation safety and therefore has both substantial merit 
and national importance. The Petitioner also submitted evidence showing his experience in the field 
of aviation curriculum design and assessment and articles describing the benefits of CBT A programs 
within the U.S. aviation field and the importance of the aviation field in general. The Director 
determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, but that he had not provided 
sufficient evidence to establish his proposed endeavor has national or global implications within the 
aviation field, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, commensurate with national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director erred in concluding his proposed endeavor was not 
nationally important in part because the Director did not provide a comprehensive analysis of the 
evidence in the record. Our review, however, reflects that the Director considered the Petitioner's 
2 
arguments and the entire record and provided sufficient analysis in concluding that he did not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director mischaracterized his role as a consultant, pointing out that 
the Petitioner would not work for any one company, but for the industry as a whole, and that the 
Director failed to give sufficient weight to the impact the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have 
in saving lives, employing U.S. workers, and improving the profitability of the aviation industry. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim on appeal and the evidence described above which primarily 
describes the Petitioner's experience in the field of aviation curriculum design and assessment or the 
overall impact the aviation industry has on the economy of the United States. Our focus, however, is 
on the prospective impact of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather 
than his credentials and experience or the importance of the industry or profession in which he will 
work. Id. at 889. 
Here, while the Petitioner claims that his endeavor is nationally important because he would not just 
be working for a specific company but rather for the aviation industry, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the consulting services he intends to provide 
as part of his endeavor, even if to multiple different companies in the industry, would sufficiently 
extend beyond his own current or prospective clients to have broader implications in the field or impact 
the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Additionally, while we recognize the need for and importance of training programs for pilots to work 
in the aviation industry, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain, and the record does not 
demonstrate, how the specific services he proposes to provide as a consultant offer original innovations 
to advance, or otherwise have wider implications in, the aviation industry or flight training and safety 
fields overall. Further, the Petitioner's general assertions in his statement regarding the contributions 
his proposed endeavor will make to the national economy are not supported by corroborating evidence. 
His unsupported and general claims regarding job creation are insufficient to establish that the number 
ofjobs created by his proposed endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects or have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 
890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor is 
nationally important. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. He therefore has not established 
he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish his underlying eligibility 
for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. While the Petitioner contests this 
conclusion on appeal, because he is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we will reserve the issue 
of whether he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 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 T&N 
3 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). Similarly, while the Petitioner contests the Director's conclusion that he did not 
establish that he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, or 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, 
as are required under the Dhanasar analytical framework, since our determination that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his proposed endeavor is nationally important is dispositive of his appeal, we 
also decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments on these issues. See id. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4