dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Athletics Coaching

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly ~nwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
~e~ree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a collegiate assistant coach. The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien 
employment certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the 
petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 
that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not established that a waiver of the alien employment 
certification process is in the national interest. Specifically, while we do not question the intrinsic merit 
of the petitioner's work, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the benefits of his work will be 
national in scope or that he has influenced track and field coaching as a whole. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -- 
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Master's degree from Arkansas State University. The director did not contest 
that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At issue is 
whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien 
employment certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing' significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest 
with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 2 17- 18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national 
in scope. Id. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. Id. at 2 1 7- 1 8. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges onprospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term 
"prospective" is used here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry 
of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would 
thus be entirely speculative. Id. 
The director did not contest that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, coaching track and 
field. The next issue is whether the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work would be national in 
scope. While the director did not explicitly address this point, the director did note the lack of letters 
from national organizations. More discussion of this issue is warranted. 
The initial petition was supported by evidence of the petitioner's accomplishments as a track and 
field athlete. The petitioner did not explain how he would benefit the national interest as a coach. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted that the prospective 
national benefit would be to provide his "knowledge at the services [sic] of the young student 
Page 4 
athletes who look at me as their role model." More specifically, he explains that he will (1) provide 
knowledge "at the service of the America[n] people by coaching students of Arkansas State 
University," (2) work at little cost to a U.S. employer because he will earn money through 
competition, (3) pay taxes, (4) improve the educational ability of student athletes through his 
leadership skills and (5) help the American people "through a program called 'Mini Track Meet."' 
Regarding the last point, the petitioner explains that during summer breaks, with the assistance of the 
head coach at Arkansas State University, he organizes a "mini track and field meet for the children of 
Jonesboro" designed "to improve the physical fitness and educational awareness of the children in 
and around Jonesboro." The petitioner submitted a letter fkom 
at Arkansas State University, explaining the petitioner's volunteer role at the university's mini' 
track meets for young children. The petitioner also submitted letters from students at Arkansas State 
University affirming that the petitioner inspires them athletically and academically. The petitioner 
also submitted a grant proposal submitted to The Kerr Foundation to provide cultural education to 
international students and the children of migrant workers in and around Jonesboro. On appeal, the 
petitioner focuses entirely on the mini track program as his means to benefit "the American people." 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3, determined that the alien in that matter would provide benefits that 
are national in scope but provided the following additional guidance on this issue: 
In reaching this conclusion, we note that the analysis we follow in "national interest" 
cases under section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act differs from that for standard "exceptional 
ability" cases under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. In the latter type of case, the local 
labor market is considered through the labor certification process and the activity 
performed by the alien need not have a national effect. For instance, pro bono legal 
services as a whole serve the national interest, but the impact of an individual attorney 
working pro bono would be so attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. 
Similarly, while education is in the national interest, the impact of a single 
schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be in the national interest for 
purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. As 
another example, while nutrition has obvious intrinsic value, the work of one cook in 
one restaurant could not be considered sufficiently in the national interest for purposes 
of this provision of the Act. 
Id. 
Similar to the examples provided above, a single coach coaching students at a single university and 
volunteering for a local summer program for students in the immediate area provides benefits that 
are so attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. That Arkansas State University may attract 
students from outside Arkansas does not change our analysis. The petitioner would still be coaching 
locally at a single university such that his national impact would be negligible. Volunteering for the 
mini track program is akin to a lawyer providing pro bono services and cannot be considered an 
activity that will provide benefits that are national in scope. Finally, every employee is obligated to 
pay taxes. As the payment of taxes does not set the petitioner apart from any other employee, it 
cannot serve as a basis for waiving the alien employment certification process in the national interest. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that the benefits of his work will be national in scope. 
It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. On appeal, the 
petitioner references the supplemental note at 56 Fed. Reg. at 60900, quoted above. Specifically, he 
notes that the application of national interest should be flexible but acknowledges that he must make 
a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the prospective national benefit required of all 
aliens seeking to qualify as aliens of exceptional ability. The petitioner then asserts that the bases of 
his waiver request are his advanced degree and his "extraordinary" abilities. Section 203(b)(2) of the 
Act normally requires an alien employment certification for both aliens of exceptional ability and 
members of the professions holding an advanced degree. Thus, merely demonstrating an advanced 
degree or exceptional ability as defined at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) is an insufficient reason to waive 
that requirement in the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not explained how his degree in a field unrelated to the area in which he claims he will 
benefit the national interest warrants a waiver of the alien employment certification process that is 
normally required for advanced degree professionals. 
Finally, a vague claim of "extraordinary" ability is also not a basis for waiving the alien employment 
certification process. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act creates a separate classification for aliens of 
extraordinary ability and requires sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner did not 
file the petition under that classification and does not claim to enjoy sustained national or 
international acclaim as a coach. At issue is whether the petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility 
for a waiver based on the factors set forth in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217-1 8. 
While the application of national interest should be flexible, eligibility for the waiver must ultimately 
rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other words, we 
generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien qualified to 
work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. Id. at 218. Moreover, it cannot 
suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." Special or unusual 
knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. Id. at 22 1. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. 
Page 6 
As stated above, the petitioner has documented his achievements as a track and field athlete. While 
the petitioner proposes to continue competing, he claims that he will benefit the national interest as 
collegiate coach and through his volunteer activities with the mini track summer program. While a 
track and field athlete and a coach certainly share knowledge of track and field, the two rely on very 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, an influential career in competitive athletics does not necessarily 
predict national benefits as a coach.' Regardless, while the petitioner's athletic achievements may be 
inspirational to his teammates, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner is an influential track and 
field athlete at the national level. For example, his recognition and individual media coverage is all 
inherently local. Similarly, as noted by the director, the letters supporting the petition are all from 
local individuals who know the petitioner personally. 
Regarding the petitioner's experience as a coach, the record contains evidence fiom his supervisor and 
athletes he has coached attesting to his ability. These letters do not explain how the petitioner has 
influenced the field of track and field coaching at the national level. For example, the record lacks 
evidence that the petitioner is frequently sought to provide coaching lectures at various venues around 
the United States or has published influential papers on track and field coaching. While the petitioner's 
volunteer services for the inherently local mini track program is commendable, the petitioner seeks an 
employment based visa and, as such, must establish that his employment will benefit the national 
interest. 
Finally, the grant proposal submitted does not relate to coaching but cultural education. Moreover, the 
record contains no evidence that the petitioner has any experience providing such cultural education or 
that he received the grant he requested. 
As is clear fiom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt fiom the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest of the United States. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See Lee v. Z.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (upholding a finding that athletic competition and 
coaching are not the same area of expertise in the context of section 203(b)(l)(A)).