The Petitioner, a commercial pilot and flight instructor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition. SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree, but did not demonstrate his intended occupation in the United States qualifies as a profession. SCOPS also evaluated the Petitioner's eligibility for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, concluding that he did not demonstrate he has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field. Finally, SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not establish that a discretionary waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and the matter is now before us on a service motion to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5). 1 The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&NDec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petlt10ner must first demonstrate their qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Following the issuance of our decision, we issued a service motion reopening the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(S)(ii) and requesting additional evidence in support of the Petitioner's eligibility. The Petitioner submitted a brief and additional evidence in response.
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
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). 3 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and ofitself: establish eligibility for this classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 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 the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as matter of discretion,4 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.
Id.
Adv an Ced Degree Professional
In our previous decision, incorporated herein, we withdrew SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner demonstrated he holds an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Upon review of the Petitioner's response to our service motion, and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm this determination. Further, we will address SCOPS' separate determination that the Petitioner did not show that his intended occupation in the United States qualifies him for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
A. Advanced Degree Requirement
Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i), a petition seeking to classify an alien as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree must be accompanied by:
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five years of progressive postbaccalaureate experience in the specialty.
The Petitioner submitted the following educational documents with his petition, but did not initially claim eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional:
- Diploma for the title of master's in business management, issued in March 2013 by □ I lin Honduras; and
- Diploma and transcript for the title of "Military Aviator Pilot," issued in 2005 following the Petitioner's completion of a three-]iear course of study at the I I _in Mexico.
1. Master's degree in business management
SCOPS concluded the Petitioner's master's degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree after consulting the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE). 5 Specifically, SCOPS stated that "[i]n the section related to the Honduras educational system, EDGE provides that a master's degree in Honduras is comparable to a master's degree in the United States." We did not address this determination in our prior decision. Rather, we concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility based on this credential because he did not submit his transcript or an educational credential evaluation for this diploma, and therefore did not meet his burden to provide an official academic record and evidence to show its equivalence to a U.S. advanced degree, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).
In our service motion, we encouraged the Petitioner to submit his transcripts and an educational credentials evaluation to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A)-(B). In response, he asserts that he clearly has an advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) "by virtue of his master's degree."6 However, he does not submit the requested transcript or a credential evaluation for this degree. Therefore, the record still does not contain a complete official academic record for the 5 USCIS considers EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See, e.g., Viraj, LLC v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2014) (describing EDGE as "a respected source of information").
Petitioner's studies a~ IWithout such evidence, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that he holds an advanced degree.
In addition, regarding SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's diploma from I Its "com arable to a master's de ree in the United States" we note that EDGE states that only the '---------------------------------------'offers graduate programs, like the master's in business management the Petitioner purpo~ave completed atl !While it appears based on the information provided in EDGE thatL___jnay recognize certain post-secondary degrees awarded by other higher education institutions in Honduras, the evidence the Petitioner provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that his degree has been granted such recognition. We also note that the Petitioner has not documented or explained what relationship, if any, exists between! landl IIt is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate eligibility by providing the official academic record required by regulation, including evidence that his foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree. Without additional documentation, he has not met this burden, and we cannot conclude that submission of his diploma fro~~---~µlone satisfies the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).
2. Title of Military Aviator Pilot
SCOPS' decision also included a separate conclusion that "the petitioner has established that he qualifies for the second preference visa classification with the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Baccalaureate degree plus at least five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." However, this conclusion was not supported by any analysis of the Petitioner's post-secondary studies at the,__ ___________,in Mexico, which led to his receipt of the title of "Military Aviator Pilot" in 2005.
As discussed in our prior decision, the Petitioner provided a copy of his diploma and underlying transcript evidencing his completion of this academic program. Although the Petitioner generally refers to it as a bachelor's degree, the transcript clearly indicates that he completed a three-year program. He did not submit an independent academic evaluation or any other evidence demonstrating that this three-year program is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which generally requires four years of university-level education.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent See, e.g., Matter ofShah, 17 l&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). We also emphasized in our decision that EDGE indicates that a three-year diploma from Mexico is comparable to only three years of university study in the United States.7 Therefore, we withdrew SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner met his burden to demonstrate that he has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.
In response to our service motion, the Petitioner indicates he "submitted diplomas, transcripts and educational credential evaluations demonstrating that he possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in aviation science, aeronautics or a related field." But the record does not include an educational evaluation for either of the Petitioner's degrees, which is why we specifically requested that he provide this evidence on service motion. Because the Petitioner did not establish that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, we will not address whether he documented at least 7 Specifically, EDGE states that a three year "titulo de" diploma like the Petitioner's "titulo de piloto aviador militar" is '"comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States." See Mexico Credentials https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/mexico. p. 5 five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B).
Based on the evidentiary deficiencies discussed, the Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that he has the foreign equivalent of either a U.S. bachelor's degree or a U.S. advanced degree. B. Professional Position Requirement
As an initial matter, although the Petitioner stated in response to the notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) that he intended to work in the United States as an airline pilot forl Iwe will only consider his stated intended occupation at the time filing. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998).
Here, SCOPS denied the petition, in part, based on a determination that the Petitioner did not show that his intended U.S. occupation of"commercial pilot and instructor" meets the position requirements for classification as an advanced degree professional.
A petitioner seeking a national interest waiver must show that the intended occupation through which they plan to advance their proposed endeavor meets the definition of a profession. See generally, USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03, Second Preference Eligibility for National Interest Waiver Petitions 7 (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manualupdates/20250115-Employment-BasedNationalinterestWaivers.pdf.
For the second preference
Occupational Outlook Handbook (the Handbook), "commercial pilots typically complete flight training, and some employers require or prefer that they have a degree."9 The Petitioner did not provide additional evidence relating to the degree requirement for his intended occupation in response to SCOPS' NOID, 10 where this issue was first raised, or address the issue in his initial appellate brief. In our service motion, we provided him an opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish that his intended occupation is a "profession" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In response, counsel contends that the occupation of commercial pilot qualifies as a profession under the applicable regulation because "the aviation industry mandates rigorous educational and licensure requirements for commercial pilots, including extensive training and certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)." Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence.Claims not backed by documents See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). Here, the Petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence to demonstrate, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation of commercial pilot. Similarly, while we acknowledge that in personal statements submitted at the time of filing and in response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner identified his intended occupation as "commercial pilot and instructor," the record does not contain any evidence to demonstrate a flight instructor qualifies as a profession. 11 Id.
As a result, even if the Petitioner had demonstrated he holds an advanced degree or its equivalent, which he has not, the record does not establish that his intended occupation in the United States requires at least a bachelor's degree as a minimum requirement for entry. For this additional reason, he has not established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Exceptional Ability
As previously noted, the Petitioner initially claimed eligibility for EB-2 classification only as an alien of exceptional ability. SCOPS determined that he submitted evidence satisfying at least three of the six categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). In the final merits analysis, SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's successful career in the aviation field, but concluded he did not meet his burden to show he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in that field.
Although we reserved and did not address this issue in our initial decision, we provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence of his eligibility for classification as an alien of exceptional ability with this service motion.
Upon review, the record supports SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner provided an official academic record relating to his "Military Aviator Pilot" diploma from]._____________. and that this diploma relates to his claimed area of exceptional ability. This evidence satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). The Petitioner also provided evidence that he holds pilot licenses and certifications relevant to his occupation, which satisfy the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). However, contrary to SCOPS' determination, we conclude the Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that he meets any additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). We address the four remaining criteria below.
A. Evidence of 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). To meet this criterion, a petitioner must provide evidence in the form of letters from current or former employers. Id. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) requires that evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and include the name, address and title ofthe writer, and a specific description ofthe duties performed, or training received.
The Petitioner's initial evidence included employment letters from: --------------' , stating he worked in various positions 12 between December 2005 until August 2013; (2 stating he worked as "Captain ATR
72-600" from September 2013 until September 2018; and (3) ~-~Istating he worked as a commander for ATR-72/600 aircra._f_t_fr_o_m_N_o_v-em_b_e_r_2_0_1_8_th_r_o_u_g_h_J_u_ly~ 2021.
In the NOID, SCOPS acknowledged this evidence but advised the Petitioner that the letter from the did not appear to confirm his employment in his claimed field of exceptional ~--------~
Although we advised the Petitioner in our service motion that we would be addressing his qualifications as an alien ofexceptional ability, he has not submitted employment letters that document his experience gained prior to the filing of the petition and satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 13 Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. B. Evidence that the petitioner has commanded a salary or other remuneration for services that demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D).
The Petitioner indicated that he meets this criterion based on the salary he received as a pilot with The Petitioner provided an Indian Annual Tax Statement '------------------' corroborating his claim that this company paid him 11,213,361 Indian rupees (Rs.) between April 2019 and March 2020. He also submitted salary data from SalaryExpert.com in support of his assertion that his salary is indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in the same field in India. The survey shows an average base salary ofRs. 636,753 for the general occupation of"pilot" and Rs 801,170 for a pilot with over eight years of experience.
In the NOID, SCOPS informed the Petitioner that it was unclear whether the salary data provided a sufficient basis for comparison, noting that SalaryExpert.com only provided an estimated salary for a "basic pilot" and noting the evidence included insufficient information regarding the survey's methodology. The Petitioner's response to the NOID did not address this criterion. He asserts in his response to the service motion that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to establish his eligibility.
However, SCOPS specifically advised the Petitioner that the data from SalaryExpert.com was insufficient to meet his burden to show he has commanded a salary that demonstrates exceptional ability. In addition to the concerns raised by SCOPS, we note the job description included in the Salary Expert.com wage data for Indian pilots specifically states that the reported figures excluded the salaries of "regional, national and international airline pilots." Here, the Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on the salary he earned as an airline pilot for a subsidiary of India Air. It is the Petitioner's burden to provide appropriate evidence that allows us to make a relevant salary comparison within his specific occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not met this burden. The evidence provided is insufficient to support his claim that he has commanded remuneration for his services that demonstrates exceptional ability relative to other similarly employed pilots.
C. Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E).
At the time of filin the Petitioner claimed he could meet this criterion based on his membershi s m ____________________________________ ____, He
I
In our service motion, we advised the Petitioner we would consider his eligibility for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the reopened matter and specifically provided an opportunity for him to submit evidence clarifying how his memberships in I !constitute memberships in professional associations as contemplated by the plain language of this criterion, in light of the applicable definition of profession at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2).
In his brief in response to the service motion, the Petitioner asserts that he is "an active member of the khe world's largest aviation community that advocates for general aviation." He states his memberships in I I "indicate his standing within the professional community and recognition of his expertise by prominent aviation organizations." Notably, the Petitioner did not claim membership in~etime he filed this petition in June 2022. In response to the NOID, he submitted a copy of his~membership card with an expiration date of December 31, 2023, which appears to have been issued to him after he commenced employment withl lin 2023. He also submits a letter froml Istating he has been a member in good standing as an employee of I ~ince January 16, 2024. Even if we determined tha~ lis a professional association, and we have not, the Petitioner could not satisfy this criterion based on hi~~--~piembership because he did not demonstrate he was a member in June 2022 when he filed the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § I03.2(b )(I) (providing that a petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing).
The Petitioner also claimed eligibility based on his memberships in.__________. but he has not provided any additional evidence regarding these associations in his submission on service motion. The previously submitted evidence, which includes a general overview ofthese associations from their public websites, does not define the associations' respective membership requirements and does not otherwise demonstrate that either association constitutes a professional association consistent with the definition of profession at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion.
D. Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F).
To demonstrate he meets this criterion, the Petitioner indicated he was submitting "support letters from professionals and notable individuals in the industry, along with official recognition certificates and various medals and acknowledgements from the Honduran military." SCOPS addressed this criterion in the NOID and allowed the Petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence. In response, he provided one additional document and maintained his initial evidence demonstrated his eligibility. SCOPS acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters praising his performance as a pilot, instructor, and in various administrative roles with the Honduran military, but noted that these letters alone did not show how he had been recognized, beyond his own employers, for specific achievements and significant contributions to the aviation field or industry. SCOPS acknowledged that some of the letters pointed to specific contributions but emphasized that they were not accompanied by evidence corroborating the authors' statements. The Petitioner maintains in his p. 10 response to our service motion that he demonstrated eligibility under this criterion based on the previously submitted evidence.
As noted by SCOPS, most of the materials do not specifically identify the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions. For example, while the evidence shows the Petitioner received various certificates from the ~---------~ he did not provide any context regarding their significance or demonstrate that they were issued as recognition for specific achievements and significant contributions to his field, as opposed to recognition for his successful performance of his assigned tasks as a military officer. The certificates alone do not detail whether or how the Petitioner has significantly contributed to his industry or field.
A letter from J-B-V-, a "liaison officer of the before the national congress," states that the Petitioner's master's degree thesis titled ~-=======:::;----------~ ~----------~was "presented to th~._________.pommander and later to the Congress," which ultimately decided to follow the recommendations suggested in the Petitioner's research project. The author states that putting the Petitioner's suggestions into practice "saved considerable cost in the national budget" and was "of great benefit to the I I" J-BV-further indicates that this achievement "granted [the Petitioner] different honorable mentions" and from The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While this letter describes a specific contribution, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the record lacks documentation to corroborate the claim that the Petitioner's thesis significantly influenced high level decision-making by the Honduran government or that it was otherwise recognized as a significant contribution to his field or industry. The record contains a certificate documenting the Petitioner's receipt of the I lmedal in December 2011, but the Petitioner indicates in his resume that his thesis was not published until October 2012, almost a year later. As such, we cannot determine that this medal represents government recognition for an achievement or significant contribution to the industry or field by a governmental entity. Similarly, the "honorable mention" certificates in the record were issued to the Petitioner in 2006 and 2007 and do not support J-B-V-' s assertion that he received the certificates in recognition of his thesis project.
A letter from O-A-C-, head of the department of~------~atl lstates that the Petitioner has made contributions to civil aeronautical education in Honduras, noting that he was part ofthe certification team of "the firs..________________.that met the standards established by the national aeronautical authority" and later served as the academic head ofthe school. The author also mentions the Petitioner's participation on a team that proposed "the first non-governmental organization in the aeronautical field, the I
I I' While._O __ -A---C---c-re_d_i-ts_t_h_e_P_e-ti-ti_o_n-er-w-it_h_m-ak_i_n_g_s-ig_n_i_fi-can_t__. contributions to advancing educational opportunities for yniring ctilian pilots in Honduras, the record lacks details about the extent of his participation in the and evidence ofthe recognition he has received from peers, governmental entities or professional or business organizations based on his contributions.
As noted by SCOPS, the other letters submitted in support of this criterion praise the Petitioner's abilities as a pilot and instructor, and his commitment to both fields, but do not contain detailed explanations about his specific contributions to the industry or field. Therefore, for the reasons p. 11 discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Petitioner has established that he meets only two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (E). Because the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements by satisfying at least three of the six criteria, we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine whether the evidence in its totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In light of the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an alien of exceptional ability.
National Interest Waiver
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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.
In denying the petition, SCOPS concluded the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the national importance, of his proposed endeavor to work as a commercial pilot and instructor. We affirmed SCOPS' decision on appeal, and reopened the matter on a service motion, affording the Petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his eligibility for a national interest waiver. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he has not demonstrated such eligibility for a favorable exercise of discretion waiving the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, as he has not shown his proposed endeavor satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
A. The Proposed Endeavor
To demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must propose a "specific endeavor." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has provided an evolving description of his proposed endeavor that includes material changes to the endeavor described at the time of filing.Tried to change the endeavor after filing
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated his occupation is "commercial pilot and instructor" and that he intended to work as a commercial pilot in the United States. In documentation submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated he is petitioning as a "Pilot and Instructor" but solely described his plans to work as a flight instructor in the United States. Specifically, in a letter of intent, the Petitioner stated:
I have alread received a ·ob offer from a U.S. com p. 12 confirming that they intend to hire me as a Flight Instructor. Ifmy petition is approved, I will accept the offer. As an instructor, I will develop flight curricula and teaching methods for ground training, conduct training flights in subjects including aircraft systems, operating procedures, emergency handling and problem analysis. I will train students to help them in the process of obtaining their pilot's license from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I Iconfirming its intent to hire him as a full-time flight instructor upon approval of the instant petition. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of his resume, his master's thesis, recommendation letters, and copies ofarticles and reports pertaining to the aviation industry and the shortage of pilots in the United States. SCOPS issued an RFE, noting that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. Specifically, SCOPS noted that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his employer to affect a region or the nation more broadly.No broader implications shown
In response, the Petitioner provided a personal statement addressing SCOPS' request. The Petitioner indicated that he intended to work both as a pilot and an instructor in the United States. Specifically, he claimed that, as a pilot, he will "support the high demand for commercial and cargo flight operations that are currently struggling due to the lack ofprofessionals." He further claimed that, as an instructor, he will "contribute significantly to pilot education by providing [his] extensive experience in the field through key activities," including updating training processes and courses, conducting pre- and postflight inspections, and monitoring aircraft systems. The Petitioner submitted additional industry articles ,gertaining to pilot shortages and the aviation industry as well as a new letter froml I I ]indicating their continued intent to hire the Petitioner upon approval of his petition. He did not provide similar evidence indicating that he had identified prospective employment as a commercial pilot or indicate how he intended to divide his time between working as a pilot and as a flight instructor for.__
Finally, in response to SCOPS' subsequent NOID, the Petitioner submitted another letter of intent outlining his proposed endeavors, where he stated he intends to "revolutionize aviation education in the United States by establishing a world-class aviation training program," with the goal of establishing his own flight school. He further explained as follows:
My journey in the U.S. aviation sector is a carefully planned progression, marked by a commitment to excellence, continuous learning, and substantial contributions to industry growth.
In the initial phase, I will focus on integrating into the U.S. aviation landsca e. I will collaborate with established trainin centers such as m Florida
,___________, A ........-----.,........----.-....,...--,-,which has already issued a letter confirming their intent to 1re me as a fu -time Instructor), I will play a critical role as a Ground and Simulator Instructor of the company's aviation training program, teaching new aeronautical students who aspire to be airline pilots to cover the job p. 13 demand in U.S. airlines. I will also seek employment opportunities with major airlines likel lwhere I will start working as a pilot on January 16, 2024. Acquiring an in-depth understanding of the FAA regulatory framework and industry-specific requirements will be a priority to ensure seamless alignment with U.S. aviation standards.
In support of these assertions, the Petitioner again submitted industry articles pertaining to pilot shortages and a third letter from I !restating the company's intent to hire him upon approval of hiJ petition. The Petitioner also submitted copies of correspondence between him and I including various emails and letters from October 2023 offering him conditional employment as an airline pilot. Finally, in support ofhis submission in response to our service motion, the Petitioner provides evidence that he is employed as an airline pilot withl ~nd has enrolled in a Ph.D. program in aviation.
In sum, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has evolved from working as full-time instructor with I I while potentially seeking employment as a commercial pilot, to working as a full-time instructor, a full-time airline pilot, pursuing graduate studies as a full-time doctoral student, and undertaking an entrepreneurial effort to "revolutionize aviation education in the United States," which would eventually entail opening his own flight school.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as an airline pilot fo~ Ialong with his proposed entrepreneurial endeavors in the field of aviation education, were presented after the filing date and cannot retroactively establish eligibility.Not eligible at the time of filing If significant material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. Accordingly, our analysis under Dhanasar's first prong will focus on the Petitioner's initial claim that his proposed endeavor is to work as a "commercial pilot and instructor." 14 B. National Importance
The Petitioner maintains that he has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his work, noting that his endeavor will substantially benefit the U.S. economy, U.S. societal welfare, and overall national interests due to the widespread importance of the aviation industry. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). For the reasons outlined below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 15 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." 26 I&N Dec. at 889.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's We 14 As discussed above, the terms "commercial pilot" and "airline pilot" are not synonymous; they describe related but separate occupations.
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.
Here, despite claiming that his endeavor will substantially benefit the U.S. economy, the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States, nor has he shown that the benefits to the national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework.Job creation or economic claims unsupported He submits media and industry reports regarding the aviation industry which establish the industry's important role in the U.S. economy. While the statistics highlighted in these reports illustrate the size and economic impact of the aviation industry as a whole, they do not address the potential economic effects of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake, which is to accept a flight instructor position or work as a commercial pilot.
Further, although the Petitioner asserts in his letter of intent that his endeavor as a pilot and flight instructor would broadly impact the national economy and help provide U.S. jobs by addressing the demand for pilots, he does not provide any detail or corroborating evidence on the claimed economic impact and hiring potential, such as financial or employment projections directly attributable to his proposed work.Plan or projections not corroborated 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. He has not done so here. The record therefore does not reflect that the proposed endeavor would have positive economic effects at the level of national importance or that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
The Petitioner further claims that his proposed endeavor has national importance because the United States faces a significant national and potentially global pilot shortage. He claims that beyond filling a vacant pilot role, his ability to also serve as a flight instructor will help fill additional vacancies in the industry by training new pilots. In his brief in res onse to our service motion, the Petitioner em hasizes that his prospective employer,__ ____________________________.
.________. and that the training he provides to aspiring pilots will expand the field of qualified aviation professionals and address the systematic pilot shortage that has led to flight cancellations and economic losses. However, he does not explain how his specific endeavor to fill one instructional position at one training facility within such a large industry would have a substantial positive impact on pilot shortages.Relied on a labor shortage Proposing to work in an occupation with a national shortage or serve in a consulting capacity for others seeking to work in an occupation with a national shortage alone, is insufficient to demonstrate that an endeavor has national importance. See generally USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03, supra at 13. 16
The Petitioner further relies on the importance of the aviation industry and a shortage of pilots as evidence of the significance of his work by referencing various industry reports concerning the flight 16 The U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses shortages of qualified workers through its labor certification process. See Dhanasar 26 I&N at 885; see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. p. 15 industry, its economic implications, and the challenges faced by airlines and pilots. However, as noted, the importance of an endeavor is determined by its specific potential prospective impact, not by the industry or occupation it involves. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. Anyone seeking such a waiver must demonstrate that "the specific endeavor" they propose to undertake has national importance. Id. While these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this determination, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and its prospective national importance is unclear. 17 Specifically we do not know if the Petitioner intends to perform both functions he describes (instructor for! lor commercial pilot), whether he will perform only one, or whether he intends to instead work as an airline pilot or pursue entrepreneurial opportunities in the aviation education field, as described in his response to SCOPS' NOTD. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Regardless ofwhich specific endeavor the Petitioner ultimately intends to pursue, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance.
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to his background, education, and experience in his field, noting that he has extensive professional experience supported by extensive flight training and certificates, that his master thesis was relied upon by the Government of Honduras to "make crucial decisions about the purchase of fleets" which resulted in significant monetary savings, and that he has obtained the prestigious rank of Captain. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work.
Further, the record does not contain credible evidence demonstrating that the financial evaluations outlined in his thesis, or his pilot expertise and claimed innovative training methods, were ever recognized or adopted by the aviation industry at large or otherwise made a significant economic or other impact in his field. The Petitioner's reliance on his prior work experience 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.Proposed endeavor too vague
Nor does the record demonstrate that his proposed endeavor in the United States would have national or even global implications within the field that would reach beyond his employers or the limited number of student pilots he may instruct with~-----~ In Dhanasar, the petitioner's work as a science teacher, while it was found to have substantial merit, did not qualify him under the first prong because the record did not show how that work would impact science education more broadly. Id. Here, the Petitioner claims that he and the pilots he will instruct will be flying national or global routes. But he does not explain how simply training pilots who may work internationally demonstrates 17 We further note that the Petitioner's counsel refers to these reports and articles throughout the record, asserting that the status of the U.S. aviation industry impacts many different industries, and that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a pilot and flight instructor will alleviate the pilot shortage and help the national economy by allowing the uninterrupted movement ofpeople, business, and cargo. Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 l&N Dec. at 51. p. 16 that his proposed endeavor has national or global implications for the aviation field, or broader implications within the field of pilot education.
For the reasons above, to the extent that the Petitioner still intends to pursue the proposed endeavor described at the time of filing, we conclude that he has not substantiated how his specific work as a commercial pilot and/or flight instructor in the aviation industry rises to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar.
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's contentions throughout the record that USCIS did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence and failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's 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 analytical framework. For example, while the Petitioner submitted numerous letters ofrecommendation from other pilots and colleagues in the field, none ofthe authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor. Instead, the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past work experience and accomplishments. Although the record contains statements regarding the Petitioner's lengthy career in the aviation industry, and while the letter writers praise the Petitioner's qualifications and commend his work, they are insufficient to establish that his proposed future endeavor is of national importance. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N at 889.
Here, in addition to repeatedly changing his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information and documentation regarding the impact of his specific endeavor as explained in the initial filing and in response to the RFE. As a result, he has not met his burden of establishing that his individual specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.
Since this identified basis of ineligibility for consideration of a national interest waiver is dispositive, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the Petitioner's assertions regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 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). The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the requested second-preference classification, either as a member ofthe professions holding and advanced degree or as an alien ofexceptional ability. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver of the job offer associated with this employment-based classification. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.