dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Fitness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 4, 2024 In Re: 29226657 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that 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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found 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 a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
A document identified as a personal statement, submitted at the time of filing, describes the endeavor 
as a "plan to work as the [f]itness [d]irector for~ _______________ located in 
I l Texas." The document farther states that the endeavor would accomplish the following: 
• Guide individuals to improve their health, fitness, and athleticism. 
• Create customized training plans to maximize athletic performance. 
• Enable athletes to maximize speed, strength, endurance, and agility. 
• Provide guidance to personal trainers, coaches, and fitness instructors. 
• Formulate tailored exercise plans and training activities for those recovering from 
injuries or who have other specialized considerations. 
The document also provides generalized information about the benefits of fitness training. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a second document 
identified as a personal statement. This document describes the endeavor as a plan to "continue 
utilizing physical education (comprised of sports science, kinesiology, and fitness direction) to 
produce, maintain, and maximize U.S. athletic talent." The document elaborates that, at the time of 
I 
the RFE 
l 
response, the Petitioner worked as the "[f]itness [d]irector forl I
a U.S. martial arts academy and fitness training center," as initially indicated the endeavor 
would entail. The document farther asserts that the endeavor "will result in greater national pride, 
benefitting societal welfare and cultural enhancement[;] expand your country's prestige in 
international events[;] increase the economic activity generated by the sport's competitive events ... 
in wide-ranging states around the U.S .... all of which produce large amounts ofrevenue when taxed 
by the state[; and] maximize the U.S. jobs created by each competition." Again, the document 
discussed generalized information regarding the benefits of fitness training. 
We note, however, that the documents identified as personal statements submitted both initially at the 
time of filing and in response to the Director's RFE contain conspicuous elements that cast doubt on 
whether the Petitioner wrote them and, thus, that they reflect her thoughts and intentions regarding the 
2 
proposed endeavor. Specifically, neither document appears to have been signed by the Petitioner. 
Instead, the signature on the final page of the initially submitted statement is fuzzy and pix elated, not 
matching the sharp text on the remainder of the page, indicating that it is a low-resolution image of a 
signature that could have been attached to the document in a word processor by any individual, rather 
than indicating that the Petitioner signed the document herself. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) 
( describing acceptable signatures on paper documents, in relevant part, as "handwritten"). In tum, the 
signature on the final page of the statement submitted in response to the Director's RFE is merely an 
italic font that could have been typed in a word processor by any individual, rather than indicating that 
the Petitioner signed the document herself. See id. Moreover, neither of the purported signatures on 
the personal statements match the Petitioner's signature on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers. We further note that both of the purported personal statements each contain dozens 
of footnotes written in Bluebook style, which is generally unknown and unused outside of the legal 
profession, specifically in the United States. The record does not reconcile how or why a Brazilian 
martial arts fitness director would have learned the Bluebook citation style and, moreover, would have 
chosen to use that citation style on her purported personal statements. 
The inconsistencies among the Petitioner's ostensible signatures on the Form I-140 and the purported 
personal statements, and the conspicuous citation style used in those documents, cast doubt on whether 
the Petitioner actually wrote them and, thus, that they reflect her thoughts and intentions regarding the 
proposed endeavor. This doubt undermines the reliability and sufficiency of the personal statements, 
and of the remainder of the documents in the record. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988) 
(providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). 
The Director acknowledged that "it appears the proposed endeavor has substantial merit." However, 
the Director observed that "the evidence of record does not convey an understanding of how the 
[P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on [her] field." The 
Director further observed that "the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor that 
she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation." The Director found that "the [P]etitioner has not 
established that her proposed work has implications beyond her employer ( or prospective employer or 
self-owned company), their prospective business partners, alliances, and/or customers at a level 
sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of her endeavor." Thus, the Director concluded that 
"the [P]etitioner has not met [her] burden in meeting the 'national importance' element of the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-90. The Director 
further concluded that the record did not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. at 888-
91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, in relevant part, that "[t]he documentation proves, by a 
preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), that [her] proposed endeavor has national 
importance." The Petitioner quotes statements submitted in response to the RFE, which themselves 
quote or otherwise reference generalized information regarding athletic competitions and the benefits 
of fitness training. More specifically, the Petitioner asserts that her personal statements, an opinion 
letter written by.__ _______ ___., and letters from the Petitioner's employer and clients satisfy 
the first Dhanasar prong. 
3 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided 
examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We have reviewed the record in its entirety; however, it does not establish how the proposed endeavor 
of working as the fitness director of the martial arts academy and fitness training center, as described 
in the record, may have national importance. 
First, the purported personal statements are unreliable and insufficient for the reasons discussed above. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Even to the extent that the statements may be reliable and 
sufficient-which they are not-they do not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the particular fields of 
martial arts and fitness training, or within any other particular field, how the specific endeavor may 
have substantial positive economic effects, or how it may otherwise have national importance. See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Instead, the statements contain numerous references, 
which we again note are conspicuously cited in the Bluebook style, that address generalizations 
regarding fitness and athletic competitions, rather than addressing the Petitioner, the specific endeavor 
she proposes to undertake, and how any particular aspect of the specific endeavor may have national 
importance. See id. For example, although the statement submitted in response to the Director's RFE 
asserts that her endeavor would "maximize the U.S. jobs created" in hypothetical competitions in 
which unspecified athletes potentially trained by the Petitioner may compete, neither the purported 
personal statements nor the remainder of the record establish the causal nexus between the Petitioner's 
fitness director duties and the creation of some unspecified number of indirect-and apparently 
temporary-jobs. See id. The purported personal statements, and the remainder of the record, also do 
not clarify how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have any more 
significance to those indirectly created jobs as compared to the trainers of any of the other athletes 
who compete in the same competitions, in order to indicate how the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake may have implications within the fields of martial arts and fitness training that 
may be distinguishable from the implications of the other participating athletes' fitness directors. See 
id. 
Next, the letter from ~-------~ bears issues similar to those of the purported personal 
statements, discussed above. The ostensible signature on the final of the letter's three unnumbered 
pages is pixelated, consistent with a low-resolution image of a signature that could have been attached 
P 
to the document in a word processor by any individual, rather than indicating that I 
signed the document himself. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). This casts doubt on whether 
.__________ __.I actually wrote the letter and, thus, that it reflects his opinions regarding the 
Petitioner and her proposed endeavor. This doubt undermines the reliability and sufficiency of the 
letter, and of the remainder of the documents in the record. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Even 
to the extent that the opinion letter may be reliable and sufficient-which it is not-it focuses on the 
Petitioner's qualifications and prior experience, in addition to generalizations regarding fitness and 
4 
I 
athletic competitions, rather than establishing how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake may have national or even global implications within any particular field, how the specific 
endeavor may have substantial positive economic effects, or how it may otherwise have national 
importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
Next, the letters in the record from the Petitioner's employer and clients describe how the proposed 
endeavor may benefit her employer and her clients. For example, the letter from the Petitioner's 
employer asserts that she "has greatly expanded our clientele by providing instructional quality that 
clients are unable to obtain from any other professional." In tum, letters from the Petitioner's clients 
discuss how she helped them recover from their particular physical injuries or lose body weight 
through fitness training. They also opine that the Petitioner could assist unspecified other clients with 
their potential fitness needs and athletic aspirations. However, the letters from the Petitioner's 
employer and clients do not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
may have national or even global implications within the particular field of martial arts and fitness 
training, or within any other particular field, how the specific endeavor may have substantial positive 
economic effects, or how it may otherwise have national importance. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5