dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25786965 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
submit the required initial evidence, specifically a completed ETA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification, or an ETA Form 750B, Application for Alien Employment 
Certification (labor certification) and as such did not demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Moreover, the Director found that the record did not establish either the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
EB-2 immigrant classification or that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be 
in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Individuals seeking immigration benefits in the United States must request benefits by filing the 
appropriate forms with USCIS . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) . Individuals must follow the relevant form 
instructions and submit any initial evidence required by the relevant regulations. Id.; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(8)(ii). A benefit request submitted without the required initial evidence may be denied on 
that basis. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii). 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner 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. In support of this request for a waiver of the job offer requirement, a petitioner must submit 
a labor certification in duplicate and evidence to support the claim that the waiver would be in the 
national interest. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii). 
While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the benefit sought, because he 
did not submit the required initial evidence of a completed labor certification, despite the Director's 
issuance of a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner of this and other deficiencies in the 
filing and requesting that the Petitioner submit the required evidence. The Director also found that 
the Petitioner did not establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification or that he is eligible for a 
waiver of the classification's job offer requirement. 
The Petitioner submits this appeal, along with a brief statement and a copy of the evidence previously 
submitted in support of his I-140 Petition. 2 The Petitioner still does not include a completed labor 
certification, although he was put on notice of this requirement by the Director's RFE and the 
Director's decision denying the I-140 Petition. 
As an initial matter, we note that the Petitioner does not appear to understand the legal requirements 
of the immigrant classification he seeks. The Petitioner does not make a specific claim that he is an 
individual of exceptional ability nor that he possesses an advanced degree. Further he does not make 
a specific claim that he merits a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement under any of three 
required prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Rather, he submitted a letter in his initial I-140 filing in 
which he states, "I recently saw that as pilots we can apply for the green card, because in the USA 
there is a huge lack of pilots due to lots of retirements in the airlines." Although he submitted evidence 
that he is a licensed pilot and has worked in the occupation, he did not submit a cover letter or brief 
describing the evidence submitted and how it establishes that he is eligible for both 1) the EB-2 
immigrant classification, and 2) a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 On his Form I-290B, the Petitioner indicated that he would submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 calendar 
days of filing the appeal. To date, we have not received any brief or additional evidence. As such, we will consider the 
appeal based on the record as it stands. 
2 
He states on appeal that he "can't talk to someone to find where the problem is or to give me a chance 
to correct my mistakes if I made some ." But the Director issued an RFE that specifically identified 
the legal and evidentiary requirements of the immigrant classification that the Petitioner seeks, the 
deficiencies in the evidence he submitted, and provided him an opportunity to submit the missing 
information and documents. The Petitioner submitted a response to the RFE but did not include one 
of the basic pieces of required initial evidence-a completed labor certification in duplicate. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (k)(4)(ii) . 
This alone is a sufficient basis for a denial of the petition. 3 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8)(ii). The Petitioner 
bears the burden to properly complete and file his petition with all initial evidence required by the 
regulations and to demonstrate his eligibility for the benefit sought. 8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b)(l). 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the evidence in the record as to whether it establishes the Petitioner's 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. We discuss each eligibility requirement in tum so that he may 
better understand the basis for the Director's denial and our decision to dismiss after de novo review . 
A. Qualification for EB-2 Classification 
As discussed above, to qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification, a petitioner must establish 
eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business . Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for the EB-2 classification 
under either basis . The Director noted that the Petitioner "indicates he has a degree and has 3 of the 
[criteria] listed for the classification sought," but concluded that the Petitioner did not clearly state 
under which basis-advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability-he seeks to 
qualify. As such, the Director could not determine "which set of criteria should be used to evaluate if 
he is eligible." 
The Petitioner does not appear to understand this conclusion . On appeal, the Petitioner states as to 
this finding, "If I understood that right, I got what they are looking for, because they need minimum 3 
[criteria], which I got. But they don't understand why I'm applying . When I sent the form, I explained 
why and I put the job for what I'm looking for on the form." 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not explicitly state whether he seeks EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. Upon review 
of the record, we also conclude that he has not demonstrated that he qualifies under either basis. 
1. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
To qualify as an advanced degree professional, an individual must possess a "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). Additionally, the regulations provide that a U. S. bachelor's degree or the foreign 
3 Although the Director issued an RFE and provided the Petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record, USCIS may 
in its discretion deny a benefit request, without first issuing an RFE, for lack of initial required evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(8)(ii) . 
3 
equivalent followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty is equivalent to a 
master's degree. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted a "general baccalaureate diploma" awarded in 2002 by thel 
I in France. However, the Petitioner did not submit transcripts, other 
academic records, or a credential evaluation that would establish that this degree is the equivalent of 
either an advanced degree or a bachelor's degree in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A)­
(B). Nevertheless, we reviewed the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions 
Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) 4 to determine the U.S. 
equivalent of the Petitioner's general baccalaureate diploma. The database confirms that this level of 
education is comparable to completion of senior high school in the United States. 5 As such, the 
Petitioner does not qualify as an advanced degree professional. 
2. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
"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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for this classification. 6 If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits 
determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. We evaluate each of 
the regulatory criteria in tum. 
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). 
As stated above the Petitioner submitted a "general baccalaureate diploma" from the ___ 
in France. However, the Petitioner did not submit any documentation 
to establish that the is a "college, university, school, or 
other institution ofleaming." Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit transcripts or other records that 
would establish what level of education this academic record represents. Finally, the Petitioner did 
not establish that this diploma relates to his claimed area of exceptional ability. As noted above, the 
diploma is the equivalent of a high school degree and does not appear to relate to his ability as a pilot. 
As such, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
4 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-l 0072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2: 12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). 
5 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/france for information regarding the education system in France. 
6 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
4 
Evidence in the form ofletter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years offitll-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Petitioner submitted letters from current and former employers demonstrating that he has been 
employed as a pilot. However, only one of the letters, covering the period from May 2012 to April 
2019, confirms that he was employed full-time. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he 
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation. 
As such, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under 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). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his Canadian Aviation License, his medical certificate from the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and a letter from the FAA verifying that his foreign license 
is valid and was current as of the date of the letter. 
As such, the Petitioner has established eligibility under this 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 did not submit evidence relating to this criterion. In his response to the Director's RFE the 
Petitioner stated as to this requirement that his salary is subject to a union agreement and as such that he 
earns "the same salary as my colleagues." 
As such, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Air Canada Pilots Association and his 
membership in the College of Professional Pilots of Canada. 
As such, the Petitioner has established eligibility under this criterion. 
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 did not submit evidence relating to this criterion. In his response to the Director's RFE 
the Petitioner stated as to this requirement, "I have nothing to give you." 
As such, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
5 
Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he satisfies only two of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Because the Petitioner does not satisfy at least three of the criteria, we need not conduct 
a final merits determination to evaluate whether the Petitioner has achieved the degree of expertise 
required for exceptional ability classification. As such, the Petitioner does not qualify as an individual 
of exceptional ability. 
Having determined that the Petitioner does not qualify as either an advanced degree professional or as 
an individual of exceptional ability, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 
for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
B. Eligibility for a National Interest Waiver 
The next issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the classification's job offer 
requirement is in the national interest. Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets the 
threshold requirement of eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, we need not address whether 
he is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, a waiver of that classification's job offer 
requirement. 7 
However, we note that the Petitioner also has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Matter of Dhanasar provides that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if an individual 
demonstrates that their proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, that they 
are well-positioned to advance their endeavor, and that on balance waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner does not claim nor provide sufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor of 
working as an airline pilot has either substantial merit or national importance. Rather, he simply states 
that, "I recently saw that as pilots we can apply for the green card, because in the USA there is a huge 
lack of pilots .... " The fact of a shortage of U.S. workers in an occupation is not evident of a related 
endeavor's national importance. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead we focus on 
the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. 
The evidence in the record includes the Petitioner's resume, diploma, work experience letters, and 
license and professional membership information. This evidence is insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, as he acknowledges that he is not licensed to 
pilot aircraft in the United States. Id. at 890. Finally, the Petitioner does not claim nor provide 
sufficient evidence to establish that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
7 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 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not submit the initial evidence required by the regulations to establish his eligibility. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii), 204.5(k)(4)(ii). Further, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies 
the regulatory requirements for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), (k)(3). Finally, the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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. 
7