dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Athletic Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 19, 2023 In Re: 26961731 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an athletic trainer, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 immigrant classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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. 
I. 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently established the substantial merit and 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by Dhanasar's first prong. 2 
The Director identified the Petitioner's endeavor as an athletic trainer who will "assist occupational 
therapists in providing, instruct or coach in exercise activities for the purpose of personal fitness" 
according to Part 6 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, "Basic Information About 
the Proposed Employment." The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit a detailed 
description of the proposed endeavor and documentary evidence to demonstrate substantial merit. 
However, the June 2, 2021 document entitled '------------------------' contains a more detailed description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. This document clarifies 
that the Petitioner is "a specialist in athletic training and physical rehabilitation who is in the process 
of launching a company focused on physical rehabilitation services" and "will utilize his experience 
in physical rehabilitation and exercise to found an institute that will provide rehabilitation services." 
The Petitioner further points to web-based articles that demonstrate physical rehabilitation exercises 
and their benefits to the U.S. population who suffer from post-surgical outcomes and other physical 
ailments, especially during the times of COVID-19 pandemic. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner listed specific activities related 
to physical rehabilitation services including "offering specific and differentiated treatments for people 
with chronic pathologies, allowing their complete recovery," "help[ing] patients rehabilitate after 
surgery, speeding recovery, and improving post-surgical patients' outcomes," "treat[ing] patients as a 
whole through myofascial release, release techniques, muscle activation, restoring muscle functioning 
with specific exercises and allowing patients to restore their quality of life." The Petitioner reiterated 
that he "will establish a physical rehabilitation institute that will provide services to patients that suffer 
form chronic pain or injuries in the back, knees, and neck, or need treatment to recover from surgeries 
such as those of the joints or cardiovascular system." 
Upon de novo review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has identified a specific proposed 
endeavor and met the substantial merit element under the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we 
withdraw this portion of the Director's decision. 
2 In denying the petition. the Director determined that the record did not satisfy any of the three prongs set forth in the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 
The record does not, however, establish that the Petitioner's endeavor meets the national importance 
element under the first prong ofDhanasar. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, 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. Here, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient evidence linking his physical rehabilitation services to having a broader reach extending 
beyond his clientele to merit national importance. 
The Petitioner repeatedly references his experience and knowledge and points to recommendation 
letters attesting to his background and qualifications. He contends that his past contributions and 
achievements "allow an accurate estimate of the prospective impact of his work." However, the 
Petitioner's professional qualifications 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 the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
The record contains support letters from the Petitioner's former co-workers at~-------~
I !Although these letters praise the Petitioner's abilities in treating and 
connecting with patients and his expertise in physical education and rehabilitation, they do not discuss 
the specific nature of his proposed future endeavor. Instead, the authors make generalized statements 
such as "his expertise would undoubtedly be an asset to schools, universities, clinics, businesses and 
companies in the United States" and "his experience will collaborate to significant improvements to 
America's welfare" without providing evidentiary support for their conclusions. 
Moreover, these letters address tangential and unrelated topics such as children's obesity as an 
important health problem in America and the Petitioner's bilingual experience as "an additional benefit 
to American companies that operate with employees from different national backgrounds." One letter 
considers employment status of high school teachers leading to a shortage of physical education 
teachers at high school level in the United States despite that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does 
not involve teaching physical education at U.S. schools. In sum, these support letters do not 
demonstrate a clear understanding of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and lack sufficient 
information and evidence to show the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rising to the level 
of national importance. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner makes several references 
to his "proprietary" methodologies that he has implemented for treating chronic pain, but the Petitioner 
does not submit independent and corroborating evidence regarding these methodologies and their 
broad impact on the field of physical rehabilitation. 
The ex ert opinion letter froml Iassociate professor of health and sport sciences at 
niversit briefl mentions that the Petitioner is "well known as the expert who developed 
the._________ __, which helped treat chronic pain and reduce recover¥ time for his 
patients." Still, the opinion does not elaborate on theI jor its usage in the 
field. Instead, it makes generalized conclusions about the proposed endeavor's potential to "improve 
3 
public health and quality of life, support jobs and tax revenue, strengthen U.S. companies, 
contributing to their growth and profits, disseminate years of specialized knowledge to the U.S. 
workforce, and help fill the shortage of wellness professionals." 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an 
opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. The submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. Id. Here, the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it overstates the evidence 
in the record and does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor as to why it 
would have national importance. 
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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner claims that by opening a new business in physical rehabilitation with his expertise will 
lead to job creation and a significant increase in the quality of services provided in his field of 
endeavor. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his proposed company will be on such 
a scale as to impact the national economy directly or indirectly. For instance, he has not offered 
evidence in the form of projected staffing levels or hiring plans to demonstrate that his proposed 
company would employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area or that 
his endeavor would offer a U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or business activity. The Petitioner has not explained or provided evidence to 
support how his endeavor will revise and improve the quality of services in physical rehabilitation so 
substantial as to affect the nation as a whole, not just his own clients. 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. at 376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights a research paper which projects a significant growth in the sports 
training market and occupational and physical therapy services, as well as a steep demand for such 
services compared to the talent shortage of athletic trainers. The Petitioner also points out the 
President Biden's executive order for continued promotion of the national youth sports strategy which 
makes mental health, physical fitness, and nutrition important issues for the country. Yet 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has 
shown only the national importance of the physical therapy or sports training field in which he intends 
to work and does not offer sufficient evidence to establish the national importance of his specific 
endeavor in providing physical rehabilitation services through his company. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework and thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, farther 
4 
analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5