dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22720786 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 07, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pilot, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either 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 of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. Accordingly, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
applied an incorrect standard of proof, did not review each piece of evidence properly, and erred in 
the decision. 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, 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, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), 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)(i i). 
2 
Furthermore, 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). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted 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 of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner offered sufficient evidence to establish that he has the 
equivalent of an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner 
qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
On his Form 1-140, the Petitioner described his work as navigating the flight of a fixed-wing, multi­
engine aircraft for transport of passengers. He stated in his initial professional plan and statement that 
he would "pursue positions within airline companies in the [United States]." In other parts of the 
record, the Petitioner emphasized that he "intends to advance his career as a [p]ilot, developing the 
field of aeronautics by using his expertise in flight operations, flight training and co-pilot evaluations, 
flight safety, and aircraft maintenance to help fill the shortage of pilots and improve the efficiency of 
the U.S. aviation and aeronautics industries." Regarding the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor, the Petitioner stated the endeavor will "substantially benefit the U.S. economy and national 
interest, considering the airline industry's national impmiance. He further explained that his endeavor 
will potentially impact the United States in the following ways: 
• Fill positions as a pilot that are vacant due to the shortage of airline pilots; 
• Serve as an accredited examiner at flight school; 
• Train newer generations of pilots; 
• Monitor engines, fuel consumption, and other aircraft systems to improve flight efficiency; 
and 
• Generate tax revenue. 
The Petitioner further claimed his endeavor will create broad implications due to the ripple effects of 
his activities. He explained verbatim that: 
[H]is work will benefit the airlines; the governments, corporations, and individuals that 
require the cargo he carries on his flights; and will have numerous ripple effects for 
other businesses and industries throughout the [United States] and globally due to the 
increase of demand and air travel on a global scale. The successful transportation of 
3 
cargo in the form of goods within the [United States] results in economic benefits such 
as the generation of more revenue, and ultimately increase the flow of money in the 
[United States] at the national level, thus contributing to the U.S. gross domestic 
product. 
In support, the Petitioner submitted numerous articles on the shortage of airline pilots, industry reports 
on aviation, a national interest waiver eligibility advisory opinion, recommendation letters, and his 
professional plan and statement, among other pieces of evidence. While we do not discuss each piece 
of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. In Dhanasar, we 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. at 889. 
The articles and reports evidence the shortage of airline pilots; however, as the Director explained, 
"there is a labor certification process in place to addresses shortages in fields. Simply working in a 
field where there is a shortage falls short of showing that the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has a 
prospective national impact." Similarly, while the articles and reports provide helpful background 
information and establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we nevertheless 
conclude that the none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
As the Director explained, 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." See id. at 889. We 
acknowledge the importance of the aviation and aeronautics fields and also of addressing the nation's 
shortage of pilots; however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his work as a pilot for 
U.S. airline companies would resolve the pilot shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of 
national importance. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not consider the letters of support 
he provided from former classmates and professional acquaintances in the field, the record does not 
support such a conclusion. Rather, the decision reflects a specific consideration of the letters, as 
evidenced by quotations from the letters and the conclusion that the letters demonstrated that the 
Petitioner "is an accomplished pilot," but that "it has not been shown that the proposed endeavor has 
national impmiance." In our review, we likewise conclude that the recommendation letters praise the 
Petitioner's personal and professional qualities, as well as demonstrate his impressive experience and 
skill sets. While the authors of the letters recognized the Petitioner's past accomplishments, none of 
the letters described the proposed endeavor or explained why it has national importance. For instance, 
I I a former classmate in the I Air Force Academy, 
mentioned the Petitioner's achievements in the aviation field, but he did not corroborate his statements 
with examples that demonstrated the impact of the Petitioner's work to the field. Rather.I I 
provided only examples of the Petitioner's accomplishments within his career, which appear to have 
benefitted his employers, but not to have reached beyond his employers to the aviation field overall. 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner served in the military and received accolades, letters 
of appreciation, congratulations, and promotions for his work. Such evidence demonstrates the 
Petitioner's distinguished service, honor, and merit, but it does not support a finding of impact to the 
field of aviation. The Director considered that the proposed endeavor also includes the teaching and 
4 
training of other pilots. However, 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. As such, the Director acknowledged the importance of training others in the field 
but explained that "[m]erely showing that the [Petitioner] has trained pilots and intends to continue to 
do so in the United States does not rise to the level of national importance." 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission 
of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 {BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Here, the letters do not support the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong as they do not discuss the proposed endeavor or explain why 
it has national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from a professor in the department 
of aviation atl I University, concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. In the national importance section ofl lopinion, he primarily discussed statistics 
on the U.S. pilot shortage, the aviation industry, as well as the robust and high-quality nature of the 
Latin American aviation industry. The advisory opinion does not contain a discussion of the proposed 
endeavor or its national importance but rather emphasizes the importance of the aviation field. 
Furthermore.I I repeated much of the information the Petitioner already provided in his 
resume without adding sufficient independent analysis. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory 
opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed 
endeavor and why it would have national importance. 
The Petitioner stated that he intends to "pursue positions" in the United States and to "advance his 
career." However, the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in 
a U.S. job search. Further, such statements suggest a proposed endeavor impact more for the Petitioner 
than for the nation. While the Petitioner's services as a pilot will benefit his employer and the 
passengers he transports, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner will meaningfully 
diminish the airline pilot shortage as a result of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner stated in his 
updated professional plan and statement that he has made significant contributions to the aviation 
industry. However, he did not corroborate this claim with examples or evidence of how he has 
impacted the industry. The Petitioner instead relied upon his career accomplishments to establish his 
impact to the industry. While his career accomplishments illustrate that he performed well in his 
positions, they do not support a finding that he impacted the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence 
and failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies 
5 
primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not 
sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
The Petitioner repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of the field, rather than the 
importance of the proposed endeavor. As we explained, merely working in an important field is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In addition, the Petitioner 
relies heavily upon his professional qualifications, his work history, and his experience to assert the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise relates to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 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. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims that the 
proposed endeavor has national importance. Even considering the claimed ripple effects, it is not 
apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to 
the level of national importance. 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 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 {AAO 2010). Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner claimed that the Director erred in not analyzing the evidence under the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. Specifically, he argues that the Director erroneously determined that analyzing 
them would serve no meaningful purpose. However, the record reflects that the Director provided 
analysis under all three prongs when issuing a notice of intent to deny (NOID). Furthermore, the 
Director specifically stated in the decision that "[a]ll submitted evidence was considered in this 
decision," indicating that the Petitioner's NOID response was incorporated into the record and duly 
considered. As the Petitioner must establish eligibility under each Dhanasar prong, a failure to do so 
under any single prong would necessarily negate eligibility for a national interest waiver overall. 
Therefore, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's argument that the Director erred in not further 
analyzing the Petitioner's eligibility, the Petitioner has not explained how providing such analysis 
would have changed the outcome of the Director's decision. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would therefore serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
6 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
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 alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7