The Petitioner, an airline pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and that a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal.
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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). p. 2 thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category ifthe petitioner demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the noncitizen 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. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also key considerations.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each ofthe factors considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a commercial pilot. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, and that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability
The Director determined the Petitioner has not met at least three out of the six criteria, and that the Petitioner, had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner did not claim eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive p. 3 of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief).
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a commercial pilot and contribute to the aviation field by sharing his expertise and knowledge. The Petitioner asserts that he will assist in addressing the numerous and concerning pilot vacancies across the country, while also providing training for others in the field. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, however, determined that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence and claims that the Director failed to give "due regard" to the submitted evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece ofevidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the noncitizen 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.
The Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor of working as a commercial pilot holds national importance due to his profound expertise, unwavering commitment to safety, and potential contributions to the aviation field. The Petitioner emphasizes his professional experience as a pilot, communication skills, his expertise in air safety operations, and his capacity to mentor others, to affirm his claim that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.
The expert opinion letter's author highlights the Petitioner's education and professional experience and states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance in the aviation field because the Petitioner is a respected leader in the field, has an in-depth leadership experience, has been responsible for the safety and operational aspects of flights, and has accrued substantial flight hours. The author further insists that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance due to the aviation industry's significance to the U.S. economy and the demand for commercial pilots in the country. In addition, the record includes industry reports and articles that emphasize the importance of the airlines industry. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The p. 4 Petitioner's extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner claims his commercial pilot proposed endeavor will enhance and improve the industry and positively benefit the U.S. economy, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Id. at 893. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submits on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative ofnational importance.No broader implications shown The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that by filling a role as a commercial pilot and serving as an instructor to current professionals, he will help address the severe shortage ofpilots, he has not demonstrated that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.Relied on a labor shortage Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the aviation industry's importance and the shortage of pilots in the United States as evidence of his proposed endeavor's importance. The Petitioner also reiterates his professional experience as pilot. We acknowledge that the Petitioner is a qualified pilot; however, that fact alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. As previously mentioned, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner states his commitment to contribute to the U.S. economy through his service as a commercial pilot, he has not, for example, sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to note that the shortage of pilot does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.
Moreover, though we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience and skill set, and his desire to help with the pilot shortage, the Petitioner must demonstrate his proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond his specific clients or community to impact the aviation industry more broadly. The Petitioner further must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of working as a p. 5 commercial pilot rather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. He has not done so.
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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.