The Petitioner, a commercial airline pilot and captain, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 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 record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish that they merit 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 U.S. Citizenship p. 2 and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely business. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance. The Petitioner stated his proposed endeavor in the United States was to "use my extensive technical skills and aviation knowledge gained from over 28 years of progressive professional experience to work as a Pilot in the United States." The Petitioner indicated that his employment as a pilot would "help curtail the shortage of experienced pilots in the U.S. because many airlines and private companies need qualified and experienced pilots." The Petitioner also emphasized that he was trilingual, well-equipped to advise on aircraft acquisitions, maintenance, pilot selection, and overall operational oversight, ready to contribute to pilot training and education based on his background as a flight instructor and set to provide support on the standardization ofsafety procedures. The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or yield substantial economic benefits, stating it was consistent with executive and legislative initiatives to advance the aviation industry aligning "with critical and emerging STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields pivotal for enhancing U.S. competitiveness." Further, the Petitioner submitted numerous articles discussing a shortage of trained pilots in the industry and indicating how immigration had positive implications on the U.S. economy.
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) asking for more clarification on the substantive nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner provided a "comprehensive professional plan" stating that he would directly address the shortage of commercial pilots in the United States. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would use:
His specialized education and training, Airline Transport Pilot and Mechanic qualifications, extensive international operational experience, complex aircraft ratings, command experience, and his endeavor as a Pilot and Flight Instructor will help contribute to safe and efficient air travel in the United States. His endeavor supports areas ofnational importance because not only will it improve the safety of commercial aviation, but he will also support the operational efficacy and expansion ofcommercial airlines and business aviation, thus aiding in the current pilot shortage and enabling the transportation systems sector to thrive.
The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor "clearly addresses critical national concerns that extend well beyond his immediate organizational context organizational context" aligning with U.S. governmental objectives aimed at deepening the available supply of pilots and qualified aviation professionals. The Petitioner also asserted that his consultancy work would refine operational efficiencies and safety protocols supporting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) goals and support long-term sustainability and growth producing substantial positive economic impacts across the U.S. economy, including the development of "more robust training programs and contingency planning strategies that strengthen the aviation sector's ability to withstand and quickly recover from personnel strategies." The Petitioner indicated that through his "multiple roles" as a practitioner and advisor would allow him to identify and advocate for policy changes that support long-term workforce stability.
The Petitioner further emphasized an expert opinion submitted from Captain D-B-, Ph.D. affirming his assertions and opining that his contributions to efficient flight operations would help U.S. airlines achieve higher profitability and competitiveness fueling job creation in the aviation industry and in other interconnected sectors. Captain D-B- also attested to the substantial economic impacts of the Petitioner's work, asserting this would allow additional skilled professionals to contribute to the U.S. economy, supporting national growth and increasing tax revenues. The captain further asserted that each major airline pilot could expect to earn nearly $10 million during their careers emphasizing that over a 40-year career this "will have a massive, positive downstream economic impact," noting that for every 100 jobs created in the field of transportation, this leads to an additional 276 jobs for the economy.
The Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor reasoning he did not provide sufficient insight as to his plans as a pilot in the United States. The Director also discussed provided letters of recommendation indicating that they did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on the aviation industry and how his proposed endeavor would have national or global implications, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic effects as claimed.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred in understanding the facts and did not sufficiently consider submitted evidence, including his professional plan to work both as a flight instructor and aviation consultant. The Petitioner also contends the Director placed undue emphasis on provided letters of recommendation he states more relevant to whether he was well positioned to advance the endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar. The Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider the submitted expert opinion addressing the claimed national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner states he submitted sufficient evidence to establish the substantial positive p. 4 economic effects his proposed endeavor will have on the aviation industry, and in tum the U.S. economy.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 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 890.
The Petitioner provided generic and unsupported statements specific to the asserted potential prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor.Claims not backed by documents For instance, the Petitioner stated that he planned on being employed in the United States as an airline pilot emphasizing this in his personal statement and asserting that this would address a claimed shortage of pilots in the country. The Petitioner indicated that "his work as a qualified airline transport pilot will contribute toward the positive development ofthe U.S. economy as a global leader in aviation." The Petitioner asserted that as of 2023 the demand for qualified pilots was over 12,000; as such, it is not clear how filing one pilot position would have a national impact on this claimed airline pilot shortage.Relied on a labor shortage
In apparent contradiction, the Petitioner also suggests that he would also work in aviation consulting, advising airlines on aircraft acquisitions, maintenance, pilot selection, overall operational oversight, pilot training, and the standardization of safety procedures.Inconsistencies in the record It is uncertain how the Beneficiary would primarily work as an active airline pilot while also providing consulting and training services at a level that would have a national impact on so many different aspects of the aviation industry, including the claimed national shortage of airline pilots. The Petitioner provided little specificity, other than referring his experience in each these different categories of aviation, as to how he would have a national level impact on the shortage of pilots, operational oversight of aircraft, airline safety procedures, among other issues impacting the aviation industry.
To illustrate, in a provided economic impact analysis, the Petitioner stated that airline travel accounted for $193 billion in revenue employing approximately 454,00 people, while airline maintenance and management produced $27 billion in revenue alone employing around l 00,000 people. These provided numbers not only illustrate the size of the aviation industry as a whole, but its various components, leaving question as to the Petitioner's contention that he could have a national level impact on a pilot shortage through consulting, while also impacting airline operations, acquisitions, safety procedures, among other aspects of the aviation industry, all while also working as an airline and/or transport pilot.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's In sum, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail as to his proposed plans and how they would have a potential prospective impact nationally, such as relieving the claimed pilot shortage, other than by employing one qualified airline pilot, instructor, or consultant at one airline. The Petitioner does not sufficiently detail and document how his work in the aviation field would be materially different from any other similar experienced employee, leaving doubt as to likelihood of its prospective national impact. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
The Petitioner regularly points to his more than 28 years of experience as well as his knowledge in various aspects of the industry, including not only flying passenger and transport planes but also his work as a flight instructor and a fleet manager, including the fact that his is trilingual. However, these do not represent specific plans to address each of these aspects of the aviation industry, including the asserted shortage of pilots in the industry, but mere discussion of his skills and experience. While it is true that a petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, the second prong does not evaluate the prospective impact of an endeavor, but instead "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. As such, while a Petitioner's background may be helpful in describing the nature of their field and prior work, it is not sufficient to establish the national importance of their proposed endeavor. Likewise, the Petitioner's reliance on his prior projects does not establish the broader implications of his proposed endeavor as he has not shown how his prior work had broad implications to the field beyond the benefits realized by his former employers and customers.Proposed endeavor too vague
As discussed, the Petitioner also emphasized an expert opinion from Captain D-B-, Ph.D., asserting that the Director did not sufficiently consider this evidence. However, the conclusions from the expert, much like the Petitioner's, lack specificity and support. For example, the expert provided little detail and support to substantiate that the Petitioner, one pilot, would have a potential prospective national impact on the profitability of airlines, "fuel job creation in other interconnected sectors," or substantially increase tax revenues. Likewise, although the expert indicated that the employment of one pilot could generate other transportation jobs, and in tum many other jobs in other industries, there was little objective evidence to support this conclusion or to demonstrate that this would likely result from the Petitioner's employment. Further, as we discussed, the Petitioner also did not sufficiently establish that he would be training additional pilots and providing consulting services to airlines, thereby creating jobs nationally in the airline industry, rather than filling only one airline pilot or consulting position. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value. See e.g., 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). 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. Dhanasar at 893. Here too, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact the aviation field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner submitted vague and non-specific business plans asserting that he would train new pilots and provide consulting services to airlines, he did not properly substantiate how this would have a national level impact on an industry he states accounts for $193 billion in revenue while employing approximately 454,00 people. The Petitioner has not submitted specific and targeted business plans but provides generic assertions about impacting the safety of commercial aviation, the operational efficacy and expansion of commercial airlines and business aviation, a claimed national pilot shortage, amongst other national level issues, each which could be reasonably deemed separate, and large, portions of the greater industry. For example, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence to support that he would be employed by airlines in his proposed training and consulting activities.
Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed work, or established how his endeavor would impact an economically depressed area. We acknowledge that the Petitioner contends that there is a shortage of qualified pilots; however, a shortage of workers alone does not establish that a proposed endeavor would likely have a prospective national impact. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
Conclusion
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 as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.