remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Mechanics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 21, 2023 In Re: 28282430 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as 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, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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. 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor 's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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).2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 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.4 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion5, 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 Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an aircraft mechanic. The Director did not 
make a determination whether the Petitioner is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification. The 
Director found that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
In his petition, the Petitioner asserted that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability; however, the Director did not evaluate his claim. The Petitioner submitted 
evidence to meet all six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). On remand, the Director 
should evaluate the documentation to determine whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2) , https: //www.uscis .gov/policy-manual. 
4 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
5 See also Poursina v. USClS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The Director's decision 
concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the evidence does 
not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, the decision 
does not sufficiently explain the basis for this determination. 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education.6 The Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor 
is to continue to work as an aircraft mechanic for a U.S. employer. He submitted his Counsel's letters, 
two professional plans, and correspondence from potential employers. We agree that the evidence in 
the record is sufficient to show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision erred by not acknowledging 
documentation submitted to establish his proposed endeavor has national importance. Also, the 
Petitioner argues that the Director did not provide an in-depth analysis of the documentation so 
that the Petitioner could understand the reason for it not establishing eligibility. The Petitioner 
points to evidence submitted with the petition and with his reply to a request for evidence, arguing 
that the documentation submitted establishes his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Director's decision names documentation received to support the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, namely a professional plan and an expert opinion. However, the 
decision does not sufficiently explain the reasons the documentation does not demonstrate the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Also, the Petitioner submitted 
additional documentation to show the national importance of his proposed endeavor, including 
an additional expert opinion, the Petitioner's resume, an additional professional plan, and 
Counsel's letters, which include explanations of the proposed endeavor and assertions of its 
national importance. However, the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these 
documents. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a petition in order to allow a petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994). In determining the 
Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Director's decision 
did not meaningfully address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to a request for 
evidence. 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
demonstrates the endeavor has national importance. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director should focus on what the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific 
occupation. The Director should keep in mind that it is the national importance of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor that must be shown, not the importance of the overall field of aircraft 
mechanics. An endeavor having significant potential on the broader implications for a field or region, 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(1). 
3 
generally may rise to the level of having national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. 7 The Director should review the record to determine whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated his proposed endeavor has significant potential on the broader impact in 
the field. 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the national importance 
requirements of Dhanasar's first prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence 
and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
For Dhanasar's second prong, the Director concluded, "You submitted sufficient evidence to meet 
prong 2." However, the Director's decision did not provide abasis for this determination. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the petitioner. We analyze whether 
the petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, and we look at several factors in 
making this determination. We consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, 
knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any 
progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, 
investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
demonstrates the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director should 
articulate the basis for finding whether the evidence shows or fails to show that he is well positioned 
to advance his endeavor. 
D. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director concluded that the Petitioner "has not established 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." The Director's decision listed some of the evidence in the record and 
stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis. 
However, the Director did not sufficiently discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those 
considerations or meaningfully address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong. 
On remand, if the Director concludes that the Petitioner does not meet Dhanasar 's third prong, the 
decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the relative decisional 
weight given to each balancing factor. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider whether the Petitioner has 
satisfied the eligibility requirements for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. In addition, the Director should properly apply all three prongs of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework to determine if the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of 
7 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(1). 
4 
a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director may request 
any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such, we express no 
opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5