The Petitioner, an aircraft maintenance technician, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver ofthe 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 (USC IS) may grant this discretionary waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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.
Law
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, he or she 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. 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 discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The alien is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
SCOPS made no determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an alien of exceptional ability. The Petitioner did not specify which of these classifications he seeks. The record contains references both to advanced degrees and to the various evidentiary requirements for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We reserve this issue at present, because other factors are sufficient to determine the outcome of the petition. 2 But any future filings must address this issue more directly and specify whether the Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an alien of exceptional ability. The issue before us on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver ofthe requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test. The Petitioner trained as an aircraft technician in his native Colombia, earning credentials as a "professional avionics technician" in 2008 and as an "aircraft line technician" in 2010. After working forl !Colombia and other employers in Colombia, the Petitioner entered the United States in January 2023 as an H-1B nonimmigrant to work as an aviation consultant forl I I I
The Petitioner described his proposed endeavor, a company called.__ ___________.
The business plan I am presenting includes the development and implementation of technologies such as variable-pitch propellers and new aircraft turbines designed to optimize fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. These innovations not only enhance the performance of aircraft under various flight conditions but also contribute significantly to industry sustainability by minimizing the amount of fuel required and reducing environmental impact.
Additionally, my project will also focus on the research and development of efficient and sustainable fuels, aiming to provide a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels. This effort aligns with national goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also offers an economic solution for airlines seeking to reduce operating costs. We estimate that the implementation of these technologies could reduce fuel consumption by up to 15%, which translates into significant savings for commercial fleets.
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, indicating that his proposed company would undertake "the improvement, maintenance and repair of commercial and private aircraft, using advanced state-of-theart techniques to optimize fuel efficiency and aircraft operability."
We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner submits an updated business plan that differs in many details from the original version of the plan. We will not consider these new details, because the Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Post-filing changes to the proposed endeavor do not retroactively apply to the time of filing. A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the alien 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance. Id. at 889-890.
The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance because it "will not only be a source of technological innovation in the aviation sector but will also have a positive impact on the economy and job creation in the United States."Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner also stated that his proposed endeavor will involve "research and development of new materials and technologies, and the implementation of technological improvements in aircraft," "while promoting the adoption of sustainable and efficient technologies."
The company's business plan indicates that the company seeks to increase turbine fuel efficiency, reducing overall fuel consumption, while also "developing efficient fuels that reduce the environmental impact of aviation."
In February 2025, SCOPS issued an RFE, stating that the Petitioner's initial evidence did not establish the substantial merit and national importance ofthe proposed endeavor. After the Petitioner responded to the RFE, SCOPS denied the petition. But, in that decision, SCOPS did not explain why the Petitioner's response to the RFE was deficient with respect to the first Dhanasar prong. Instead, SCOPS simply stated the conclusions, repeated from the RFE, that "the provided evidence fails to establish the petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit ... [and] national importance." SCOPS asserted that the Petitioner had not submitted "sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the specific endeavor." On appeal, the Petitioner cites statistics about issues such as aviation maintenance and the effects of pollution on the climate. The Petitioner also provides new estimates of job creation, based on the substantially revised business plan.
SCOPS does not appear to have given sufficient consideration to the Petitioner's arguments and evidence in response to the RFE. As noted above, the denial notice does not acknowledge or discuss the Petitioner's response to the RFE with regard to the first Dhanasar prong.
By itself: the operation of an aircraft maintenance company does not appear to have national importance. Its chief impact would appear to be limited to its clients. The Petitioner also did not p. 4 establish that the endeavor would result in a qualifying level of job creation. But the proposed endeavor, as initially described, extended beyond routine aircraft maintenance. Upon consideration, we conclude that the widespread adoption of improved aircraft engines and aviation fuels could have implications and impacts sufficient to meet Dhanasar's first-prong requirements of substantial merit and national importance.
While we are reversing this element of SCOPS' decision, we agree with the overall outcome of that decision. Below, we will explain why we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not satisfied the second Dhanasar prong.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the alien. To determine whether an alien is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record ofsuccess 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 I&N Dec. at 890.
In his initial statement, the Petitioner stated that his "professional experience" and "track record of achievements" establish his eligibility. The Petitioner described his experience:
Throughout my career, I have worked . . . in the implementation of avionics technologies and advanced navigation systems. My responsibilities also included installing advanced avionics systems and upgrading essential components to improve aircraft performance and safety. Additionally, I have led the development and implementation of technological improvements in aircraft that have contributed to reducing fuel consumption and optimizing operational efficiency.
One of the highlights of my career has been my ability to improve aircraft fuel efficiency, which has had a positive impact both economically and environmentally.
My contributions have enabled airlines to significantly reduce operating costs while helping to meet international sustainability standards in the aviation industry.
The Petitioner submitted copies of certificates showing his technical training, establishing his qualifications as an aircraft technician. The Petitioner also submitted letters attesting to his past experience as a technician, repairing and maintaining aircraft. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, however, is not merely to continue working as a technician. The endeavor is tied to I I I I
The company's original business plan, submitted in November 2024, uses the present tense to describe an existing company, actively developing new technology. The plan includes these passages: Our key innovations include variable-pitch propellers, new aircraft turbines, advanced aerodynamic materials and the development of efficient and environmentally friendly fuels....
At.______________,, we contribute significantly to the U.S. national interest through technological innovation in the aviation industry. We drive U.S. global competitiveness by developing and applying technologies that improve fuel efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance aircraft safety and operability. We also create jobs in the aerospace industry and contribute to economic growth through the creation of advanced technologies ....
. . . We are at the forefront in the research and development of new fuels that not only improve flight efficiency, but also have a lower environmental impact, contributing to the sustainability of the aviation industry.
The quoted passages imply that the company is already engaged in "technological innovation" and "the creation of advanced technologies." But the record does not show that the company existed when the Petitioner filed the petition in November 2024. Other parts of the business plan are worded in the future tense, describing what the Petitioner and the company "will" do in the future.
In his own separate statement, the Petitioner likewise implied that the endeavor is already underway. He stated: "My team and I are dedicated to reducing fossil fuel dependence by innovating in biofuels and synthetic fuel alternatives that offer lower CO2 emissions and higher efficiency. Through advanced research and testing, our R&D lab explores sustainable fuels that are more in line with global environmental standards." The Petitioner did not provide further details about the "team" and "R&D lab," and did not document their existence.
Although the business plan and the Petitioner's statement both purport to refer to existing, ongoing innovations, the Petitioner did not submit evidence, such as patent applications, to show that he has been involved in "developing . . . technologies" as opposed to applying existing technologies developed by others.Plan or projections not corroborated
The business plan includes the assertions that the company's "leadership team is comprised of experts with vast experience in the aerospace industry," while the "technical team is composed of aeronautical engineers, maintenance technicians, and materials and fuel specialists." The plan also includes the names and capsule biographies of a "CEO/Managing Director," "Director of Operations," "Research and Development Director," "Sales and Marketing Director," and "Chief Financial Officer." These present-tense descriptions depict an established organizational structure with leadership and technical teams already in place.
But, as noted above, the record contains no evidence that the company existed in November 2024, or that it employed any of the individuals named in the business plan. Also, the lists of purported company officials at sections 8.1, "Organizational Structure," and 8.2, "Description of Roles and Responsibilities," do not include the Petitioner's own name. A later section ofthe same plan identifies the Petitioner as the "CEO/Managing Director," with no explanation as to why the earlier section twice provided a different name, with the initials J.P., for the person holding the same title. p. 6 In the absence of evidence that the company actually existed, with the claimed personnel structure, at the time of filing, we can give no weight to the present-tense assertions regarding the company, its structure, and its activities. Given the many questions and inconsistencies surrounding the business plan, the business plan is not strong evidence that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.Inconsistencies in the record
In the RFE, SCOPS acknowledged the letters the Petitioner had submitted, but SCOPS observed that letters discussing the Petitioner's past work as a technician do not directly address the proposed endeavor. SCOPS also noted the Petitioner's various licenses and certificates, but determined that these materials do not establish "a record of success or progress" in the specific endeavor that the Petitioner seeks to pursue in the United States.Past record does not show influence or success SCOPS further determined that the business plan lacks corroboration.
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted further information and documentation regarding his past employment in Colombia and the United States. The Petitioner asserted that he "held positions of high technical responsibility as an aeronautical technician in avionics systems and structural maintenance."
The Petitioner asserted that I I business plan described "[a] scalable organizational structure capable of generating, in its first stage, between 40 and 60 specialized technical jobs, including aeronautical engineers, maintenance mechanics, fuel specialists, and applied electronics technicians," along with "Research & Development (R&D) laboratories for the design of advanced aeronautical components and sustainable fuels." The Petitioner did not claim any experience establishing or running a business of this size, involving laboratories, research, and development. A "Financial Projections" table in the business plan predicts annual expenses of $3.8 million, consisting of $1.2 million on R&D, $1.8 million in operating costs, and $800,000 for marketing and sales. These expenses do not factor in another $6 million in anticipated start-up costs, comprising $2.5 million for "specialized equipment and tools," plus $3 million for "the construction and equipping of ... the main headquarters, maintenance shops and R&D laboratory," and $1.5 million in "working capital ... to cover operating expenses during the first few months of operation." The business plan therefore indicates that the proposed endeavor would cost nearly $10 million in its first year. The plan further indicates that the Petitioner would "[s]eek financing through angel investors, venture capital, and government programs" to cover "[t]he high upfront costs."
Dhanasar indicates that "consistent" and "sustained ... funding" can help to establish that a petitioner is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. But in this case, the Petitioner did not establish that he had secured any ofthe necessary funding. An intention to seek such funding in the future does not suffice to meet the second Dhanasar prong.
In the RFE, SCOPS stated that the Petitioner had not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. SCOPS noted the lack of evidence that "his work has been utilized in the field," such as patents or published materials featuring his work. SCOPS added that the record does not show that the Petitioner has attracted the funding necessary to launch the proposed endeavor. SCOPS stated: "Evidence which best establishes that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor will document the petitioner's qualifications ( skills, experience and track record), p. 7 I support (financial and otherwise) and commitment (plans and progress) to drive the endeavor forward and will support projections of future work in the proposed endeavor."
In response, the Petitioner emphasized his "more than 17 years of experience in the aeronautical sector" and his various credentials. The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor "is perfectly aligned with national sustainability and global competitiveness goals," and that "initiatives such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and programs from the U.S. Department of Energy" provide access to "resources and federal funds." The Petitioner did not state or show that he had actually secured government funding or taken concrete steps to do so.
The Petitioner submitted a heavily revised "Financial Plan," indicating that initial expenses would include $400,000 for "Infrastructure and Equipment (facilities and basic tools)," $200,000 for "R&D," and $150,000 for "Initial operating costs (first 6 months)." The Petitioner also indicated that "Phase 2" would cost an additional $1.35 million, and "Phase 3" another $1.9 million. The new figures are substantially lower than the expenses that the Petitioner estimated in the first version of the business plan. The Petitioner did not explain this major downward revision. 3 The Petitioner also stated that he had "requested" a $600,000 bank loan. He did not document any loan application or its outcome. Although the Petitioner had initially asserted that government funding would be available to support his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted no detailed information about specific sources or how to obtain it.
The Petitioner submitted two new letters, both from officials of an aviation maintenance company in IFlorida. An avionics lead who "worked alongside [ the Petitioner] on numerous high-level aviation projects" praised the Petitioner's problem-solving abilities and his years of experience. An avionics manager who has repeatedly collaborated with the Petitioner praised the Petitioner's "deep knowledge of aviation systems" and "outstanding leadership skills."
While the writers of these two letters clearly hold the Petitioner in high regard, they did not address specifics of the proposed endeavor and establish that the Petitioner has not only the skills but also the resources to advance that endeavor. The proposed endeavor involves more than simply being a highly skilled and qualified avionics technician, and therefore information about his abilities in that area cannot suffice to meet the second Dhanasar prong.
In the denial notice, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner's credentials and track record do not sufficiently establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. SCOPS acknowledged and briefly quoted from the two new letters, but concluded that they do not sufficiently address the proposed endeavor. SCOPS also stated: 'The business plan makes various staffing and revenue projections, but it does not offer any details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they will be realized." SCOPS noted the lack of evidence of "awards, grants, investments, or other relevant non-monetary support."No interest from users, customers or investors
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his years of experience have given him expertise "in critical areas such as predictive maintenance, structural repair (retrofit), and the validation of technologies related to sustainable fuels." The Petitioner states that his "professional positioning as the leader of this endeavor ... has been independently validated by a group of highly qualified professionals, including experts in aerospace engineering, avionics, and public policy, who have analyzed my experience, technical abilities, and the national relevance of the project."
To support the last assertion above, the Petitioner cites two previously submitted letters from writers who indicated that they had repeatedly worked with the Petitioner, and whose assertions therefore are not independent as claimed. The Petitioner also names a third individual, identified as "a public official with experience in territorial innovation and development [who] issued two distinct expert statements." We cannot find those statements, or prior references to them, in the Petitioner's initial submission or in his response to the RFE.
Even then, the purported quotations attributed to the public official are vague and general. The Petitioner asserts that this individual "stated that the initiative":
- "Directly addresses structural gaps in U.S. infrastructure and regional inclusion policy."
- "Aligns with key components ofthe Biden administration's Investing in America and Justice40 initiatives."
- "Is led by a professional with technical and strategic capabilities to deliver measurable results." These statements are so broad that it is not readily apparent how they pertain to the proposed endeavor, or his ability to carry forward the endeavor. Therefore, the presence or absence of the individual's claimed statements does not appear to materially affect the outcome of the proceeding.
The Petitioner states, on appeal:
.______________. has been formally incorporated as a legal entity in the United States, in compliance with relevant state and federal requirements. The company already includes:
- A five-phase implementation plan, with operating centers m Washington, Georgia, and Texas.
- Conservative financial projections validated against real market benchmarks (EIA, 2024).
- A hiring plan projecting at least 450 direct technical jobs over five years, all for U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- Training agreements in preparation with I I
I Iand the I I,
The Petitioner has not submitted documentation showing that the above arrangements are in place, and, more importantly, that they were already in place when he filed the petition in November 2024. Some ofthe above information relates to the heavily revised business plan submitted on appeal, several months after the filing date.Not eligible at the time of filing
While the Petitioner has shown that he has considerable experience as an aircraft technician, performing such work does not involve the same skill set as establishing and running a business with several organizational layers as described in the business plan. The original business plan states: "We will establish an R&D laboratory dedicated to researching alternative fuels. . . . We will conduct rigorous testing and certification of newly developed fuels." The Petitioner has not documented any experience developing new aircraft fuels or overseeing a laboratory engaged in such research. The Petitioner has not shown that he has secured the funding necessary to meet the start-up costs originally described. His subsequent drastic downward revision ofthose costs occurred after the filing date and the Petitioner has not shown that the much lower costs are realistic for the enterprise he seeks to undertake.
In light ofthe above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden ofproof to show that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar national interest test. Detailed discussion of the remaining prong cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Because the Petitioner has not otherwise established eligibility for the classification sought, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.