dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Fitness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC . 4, 2023 In Re: 28559841 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the fitness industry , seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying classification or 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. 1 Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 2, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not contend that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. Accordingly, we 
deem this issue abandoned. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731 , 2011 WL 4711885 at *I, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs' claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a fitness director for her company in Florida. She further states 
she will be "providing consultation to U.S. coaches, team managers, personal trainers, fitness 
instructors, and athletes involved in high-performance athletic teams" and "will also consult U.S. 
clients who [to] seek to improve health and fitness using science-based training methods." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. For example, endeavors 
related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify. Id. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, 
and we agree. Turning to the national importance of her endeavor, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in finding that the record does not establish 
that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her field, substantial economic benefits, 
significantly impact employment levels, or have national or global implications. In support, the 
Petitioner relies on her previously submitted personal statement, letters of support, and letters from 
clients. She does not, however, provide new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's 
determination. For example, as noted by Director, while the statement and letters give insight into the 
Petitioner's past and current plans, they lack specificity and detail and are not supported by 
independent, objective evidence to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. We 
note that 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. 
Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a fitness director would impact 
the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her clients. 
Therefore, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to this prong. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) Goining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
2 
(1976). We also reserve a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant 
classification. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
I 
3 The Petitioner provided a copy of her Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel in physiotherapy and transcript from I.______.
!University indicating that she began her studies in July 2006 and completed them in 2008. According to the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global 
Education (EDGE) entry for the Titulo de Bacharel, it is awarded following three to five years of undergraduate study and 
only the four-year program is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. While we acknowledge the submission 
of an academic evaluation concluding the Petitioner's Titulo de Bacharel is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, the evaluation inexplicably states that the Beneficiary's program lasted four years and ended in 2010 and does not 
address or explain the discrepancy with the dates from the provided transcript. As such, the Petitioner has not established 
that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or the equivalent in the field. In any future filing in 
this matter, the Petitioner should address this issue and submit appropriate documentation. 
We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. Sec Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2: 12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). For more information. visit https://www.aacrao.org/edge. 
3