dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Fitness And Well-Being

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 30630100 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as 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 EB-2 classification . 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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, 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. 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends: 
Through the opening and operation of the startup business, he will be able to provide 
Fitness and Well-Being consulting services to all sorts of companies and individuals in 
the United States, to ensure all individuals are well-advised regarding their physical 
and health habits, and that employees are in their best health state, thus leading the 
companies to obtain best results. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
provided documentation regarding a wide range of topics, such as training supervision, fitness trainers 
and instructors, and health benefits of physical activity, the matter here is not whether these subjects 
are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his 
specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services through his company in the I I 
Florida area. 2 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. 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." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, 
or mathematics) profession, stressing it falls within technology and entrepreneurism. With respect to 
the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. 3 Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM 
technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit 
in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. 4 On the other hand, while proposed classroom 
teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational 
interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM 
education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance. 5 Here, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
3 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
2 
has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services to his potential or 
prospective clients. 
Similarly, the Petitioner also argues the submission ofletters, such as from Deputy Captain T- "where 
he reports that my work as a physical trainer for the police officers made all difference in that 
operation." Although the letters discuss the Petitioner's particular services, the letters do not show the 
broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to his specific clients, who employed or 
utilized him for his services. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and 
accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first 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 he proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Moreover, the record contains an expert opinion letter from A-J-R- who found the proposed endeavor 
to have national importance. However, the letter discusses the importance of various topics and 
initiatives rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed 
endeavor. In addition, the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services or company 
would have broader implications for our country. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his services or business would largely influence the field and 
rise to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his 
endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue projections, even if credible or plausible, have 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts 
revenues from $58K in year 1 to $90K in year 3, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of 
this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Furthermore, the 
business plan does not make any employment projections, demonstrating that such future staffing 
levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the I I Florida region or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, 
did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the 
area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its 
prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising 
to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
3 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose, as well 
as a review of the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying immigrant classification. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4