dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Helicopter Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 22, 2024 In Re: 30213230 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a helicopter pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification 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. § 1 l 53(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 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 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 of recognition 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional 
ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
2 
Dhanasar, 26 I&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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a helicopter pilot. The Director of the Texas 
Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified as 
an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that although the Petitioner met at least 
three out of six criteria, the record lacked evidence that the Petitioner's degree of expertise 1s 
significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Director considered the totality of the evidence presented in a final merits determination and found 
that the Petitioner, had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he possesses a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. The 
Petitioner did not claim eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director made erroneous conclusions of law and fact and 
failed to conduct proper final merits analysis of the totality of the evidence presented. The Petitioner 
states that he submitted evidence to demonstrate that he is an individual of exceptional ability. The 
resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need 
not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a helicopter pilot in the medical 
air transport field. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, and that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, 
however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and 
that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
2 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked evidence that demonstrates the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor based on its potential economic, societal, and public health 
benefits. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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. 
The Petitioner states that he wants to continue working as a helicopter air ambulance pilot. In his 
personal statement, the Petitioner emphasizes his extensive experience as a pilot and expresses his 
intention to deliver expert helicopter pilot services to air medical transport companies. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed 
endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or that it would 
broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. The Director also determined that 
the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to confirm whether he intends to pursue his proposed 
endeavor in an economically depressed area, whether his endeavor would result in employing a 
significant population of workers in the area, or whether his endeavor would bring substantial positive 
economic benefits to a region, or its population as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor holds national importance because it will have a 
positive impact and contribute to the well-being, health, and reassurance of one in every four 
individuals in the United States. The Petitioner further asserts that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance because it will boost the air medical transport industry and will be an invaluable asset in 
the country. He asserts that helicopter air ambulance pilots play a crucial role in the public health of 
the country and maintains that his proposed endeavor is of urgent national importance, as a result. 
The expert opinion letter states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance 
because it contributes to the national safety, security, and emergency response. The expert opinion 
letter's author highlights the importance of helicopter pilots in protecting communities and advancing 
national interests, and maintains that the proposed endeavor has national implications within the 
aviation field, has potential to employ U.S. workers, and will broadly enhance societal welfare. 
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 claims his endeavor will boost the aviation field, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of 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. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence 
he submits on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to 
4 
sufficiently extend beyond his employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of 
national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his endeavor will 
yield extensive benefits for the U.S. economy, he has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the aviation industry's importance and the shortage of pilots in the 
United States as evidence of his proposed endeavor's importance. The Petitioner also submitted a 
letter from his current employer, for whom he works as a helicopter air ambulance pilot, to demonstrate 
his endeavor's national importance. We acknowledge that the Petitioner is a qualified helicopter pilot; 
however, that fact alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed 
here. As previously mentioned, 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. Although the 
Petitioner states his commitment to enhancing societal welfare and public health through his service 
as a helicopter air ambulance pilot, he has not, for example, sufficiently explained how he will 
positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on 
a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to note that the shortage 
of pilots, as well as helicopter pilots, does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally 
important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner maintains that he is an experienced helicopter pilot with 1 7 years of experience in the 
field of air medical transportation and has worked as a helicopter pilot, instructor, and operations 
officer in organizations responsible for medical evacuations and air medical transportation. He further 
mentions his readiness to offer his knowledge and experience in the air medical transport field to make 
a positive difference in rural communities and affirms that his endeavor is nationally important. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience and skill set, and his desire to work in rural areas, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate his proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond his 
specific clients or community to impact the aviation industry more broadly. Moreover, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of working as a helicopter 
pilot rather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. He has 
not done so. 
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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
5 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his 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 
his 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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6