remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12283136 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 14, 2021 
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 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. 
§ 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability. 1 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the record does 
not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability . See section 
203(b )(2) of the Act. Specifically, the Director's conclusions regarding the criteria for exceptional 
ability are inconsistent. The Director stated that "evidence meets the plain language requirement" for 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204 .5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (C), and (D). However, the Director also stated that "the 
[P]etitioner has not provided documentary evidence which shows that [a statement in the record 
regarding the Petitioner's salary] demonstrates the amount of wages or remuneration that he has 
received is based on exceptional ability." That observation directly conflicts with the statement that 
the record meets the regulation's plain language requirement for that criterion. The Director further 
concluded that "the [P]etitioner has not met at least three of the six criteria" at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii), despite having stated that the record met the regulatory requirements for three of 
the six criteria. 
1 The Director addressed whether the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. In 
a request for evidence (RFE), in relevant part, the Director informed the Petitioner that he "has not established that he has 
an academic record which shows that he has an advanced degree . ... " However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
specifically stated that, although the Director requested additional evidence to establish that qualification, "because [the 
Petitioner] meets the [e]xceptional [a]bility classification , [I am] not providing additional evidence to show [a]dvanced 
[ d]egree." Therefore, whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree is not 
an issue on appeal. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination of 
the exceptional ability issue and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional 
evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no 
opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2