dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Gymnastics Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15980558 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 23, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a gymnastics coach, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability and that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
While the evidence supported a finding that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director 
determined thatthe evidence did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance, or that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, wou Id be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts his eligibility for a national interest waiver and argues that the 
Director erred in the decision . In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver , a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(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) National interest waiver .... [T]he 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. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, 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).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as matter of discretion ,2 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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.3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting at 
least three of the six criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We agree. The petition, however, 
cannot be approved. 
Despite the Director's request for evidence (RFE), which informed the Petitioner that it must submit 
either an "Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA 9089), Parts J, K, and Lor an 
Application for Alien Employment Certification (Form ETA-750 Part B Statement of Qualifications 
of Alien)," the Petitioner submitted neither form in its RFE response nor on appeal. For this reason 
alone, the petition cannot be approved. 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Beneficiary qualifies for a national interest waiver 
under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. Since 2016, the Beneficiary has been working 
as a lead gymnastics coach a ~---------~where he reports directly to the head 
coach and owner, assisting her in "providing training direction, encouragement, motivation, and 
nutritional advice to prepare athletes for competitive events." The Petitioner reported that the 
Beneficiary's original training methods have helped a junior elite female gymnast to achieve better 
career methods through the use of the "giant swing," a technique which is typically used by male 
gymnasts, but which the Beneficiary transferred to her training, thereby enabling the potential for her 
to attain higher d iff icu lty scores.4 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that the Benet iciary's proposed endeavor is to "work as a 
gymnastic coach specialized in training elite female gymnasts." In its RFE response, the Petitioner 
clarified that in addition to his previously stated duties, the Beneficiarywill also assist the head coach 
to organize, demonstrate skills, and conduct practice sessions for choreography; adjust coaching 
techniques based on the strengths and weaknesses of athletes; plan and direct physical conditioning; 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 20 l 9)(finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 The Petitioner cites the "giant swing" technique several times andrelies on it as one ofthefewconcreteexamples of the 
Beneficiary's coaching impact. We conclude, however, that even if this technique made a broader impact in the gymnastics 
field, a conclusion not supported by the record, the evidence would not support a finding of a sustained impact. Rather, 
the "giant swing" appears to be a single, isolated example of the Beneficiary's coaching impact. 
3 
enforce the safety rules and regulations; and keep track of changing gymnastic rules, tee hniques, and 
regulations. 
The Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but that the record did not 
establish the proposed endeavor's national imp01iance. Specifically, the Director noted thatthe record 
did not establish: (1) the national benefit of the proposed endeavor; (2) the importance of gymnastics 
to the nation; (3) that the endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects; or that (4) the proposed endeavor impacts a matter of national 
importance, is the subject of national initiatives, or will enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic 
enrichment. We agree. To evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 
work. We conclude that while his endeavor does have substantial merit, the record does not establish 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's coaching would impact the field of 
gymnastics or sports more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific gymnasts and workplace 
he serves. 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. See Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 893. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies on the prospective impact the Beneficiary 
might have on the gymnasts he coaches as sufficient to meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
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 unde1iake." Id. at 889. We further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that"[ a ]n unde1iaking may have national imp01iance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. As more 
fully explained below, the Beneficiary's coaching may impact the individuals he coaches, but even 
considering a national shortage of gymnastics coaches, the Petitioner has not persuasively established 
how the Beneficiary's activities will have a broader impact. 
Regarding his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not identified any elite gymnasts that the 
Beneficiary currently coaches or any specific gymnasts he plans to coach in the future. While we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence concerning the Beneficiary's past work with certain gymnasts 
of national and international achievement, we do not find sufficient evidence in the record explaining 
which specific athletes the Beneficiary [lans to coach as part of his proposed endeavor.5 A letter from 
the Beneficiary's coaching colleague,_ I states that the Beneficiary's work will improve 
children's gymnastics. While we acknowledge that gymnasts may be young, even at the elite level, 
the Petitioner has not cl earl] defined the type of gymnast the Benet iciary will work with in his 
proposed endeavor. I _ s statement casts confusion upon the demographic of gymnast the 
Benet iciary intends to coach. 
The Petitioner provided a printout from its website featuring the head coaches atl I I I however the Beneficiary is not featured as one of these coaches nor is his name or 
coach profile highlighted elsewhere on the Petitioner's website. If the Beneficiary's coaching had 
generated an impact in the field of gymnastics at a level commensurate with national importance, we 
5 In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. 
4 
would expectthe Petitioner to broadly advertise the Beneficiary's coaching availability in order to 
attract positive attention and business for the Petitioner. The lack of publicity for the Beneficiaiy's 
coaching services suggests that the Beneficiary's coaching has not reached a level of national interest 
such that the larger gymnastics community is aware of him or his "top-notch" and "ingenious" 
coaching methods. In our review of the Petitioner's website, we observe most of the offered 
gymnastics classes target small children and that the Petitioner places far less emphasis on elite 
gymnastics training. 6 Based upon this information, we question whether the Beneficiary will primarily 
be engaged in coaching elite gymnasts, as opposed to young children who are simply enrolled in 
gymnasticsactivitiesforfun. This is important, as the coaching of young children in a noncompetitive 
and local setting may have even less national importance than coaching elite athletes who may rise to 
gain national or international acclaim.7 
The Petitioner submitted numerous letters of recommendation in which the authors praise the 
Beneficiary's background, education, experience, and abilities in the field. 8 Many letters contain 
vague and general statements, such as that the Benet iciary brought "the most scientifically valid 
training approaches" and offered "uniquely bold approaches." The author of such statements offered 
little explanatory detail for these claims and we have little corroborating evidence to support them. 
None of the letters includes sufficient details substantiating how the Beneficiary's coaching has made 
any impact in the field of gymnastics or sports as a whole. To illustrate.I I a friend of the 
Beneficiary and also his coaching competitor, offers an insufficient basis to conclude that the 
Beneficiary has made an impact in the field overall. Whilel I plans to incorporate the 
Beneficiaiy's "giant swing" technique for his gymnasts in the future, there is little evidence to suggest 
tha~ I has already done so or that such implementation would have any effect at all beyond 
the individual gymnasts who use the technique. Moreover, even ifl I had incorporated the 
technique with success, this would not establish the broader impact of the Beneficiary's coaching, as 
I personally knows the Beneficiary and serves as the sole example of the Beneficiaiy's 
coaching impact beyond the Beneficiary's own gymnasts and employer. 
Likewise.I I the~-------~ at USA Gymnastics,9 appears unfamiliarwith 
the Beneficiary's work, despite his/her review of materials relating to the Beneficiary's coaching and 
the Beneficiary's longstanding membership in USA Gymnastics.10 This evidence strongly suggests 
that the Beneficiary's coaching has not impacted gymnastics at a national importance level. While 
~----~claims that the Beneficiary's coaching will serve USA Gymnastics, there is little 
indication that it has and even if such impact had been reached, service to USA Gymnastics alone 
would be insufficient to establish national importance. Similarly, although some of the gymnasts the 
Beneficiary has coached in the past have been successful at an elite level, the Petitioner has not 
explained how th is individual success establishes the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
6 The class schedule and various website pages advertise classes primarily geared toward toddlers and grade school 
children. For further information, please visit https:/l I (lastvisited July 23, 2021). 
7 Even assuming these gymnasts achieve an elite level of success, the Petitioner would still need to establish how the 
Beneficiary's coaching of the gymnasts has national importance. 
8 The Petitioner submitted six letters in the initial filing and four additional letters in its RFE response. While we do not 
discuss each letter individually, we have carefully reviewed and considered each one. 
9 USA Gymnastics is the national governing body for the sport in the United States. 
10 The conclusion that the Beneficiary's coaching is not known in the gymnastics community in a manner suggestive of 
national interest is further supported bythefactthat even after a review of materials relating to the Beneficiary, the author 
of the letter refers to the Beneficiary using the wrong gender pronoun. 
5 
~---~I the owner of a competing gymnastics training company, submitted a letter suggesting 
that the Beneficiary's methods and expertise are primarily due to his national origin, which speaks 
more to the qualities of the Beneficiary than the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner's expe1iise relates 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 substantial merit and national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong.I Is claim that the Beneficiary's reputation is known in the gymnastics 
community are accompanied by few supporting details to substantiate such an assertion. Although 
the letter states the Beneficiary has a willingness to coach other coaches, which may suggest a potential 
for broader impact, the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor contains no indication that he intends to 
coach other coaches. MoreoverJ ~s letter contains numerous grammatical errors that diminish 
the probative value of the letter and the assertions contained therein because it suggests the letter is 
not professional in nature or written by someone with a credible reputation in the field. 
Overall, we note that several of the letters repeat exact phrases that the Petitioner provided in its initial 
cover letter on behalf of the Beneficiary. For instance, the Beneficiary's former pupilj I 
describes his experience of being coached by the Beneficiary using the exact language the Petitioner 
used in its cover letter. The letter fro ml O I the Beneficiary's friend and coaching competitor, 
describes the Beneficiary's "giant swing" technique using several identical sentences that the 
Petitioner previously provided. The portions of identical language contained in the letters diminishes 
the probative value of the letters. We cannot ascertain whether the Petitioner recycled language from 
the letters to write its cover letter or if the letters themselves were not independently written by the 
stated authors.11 This, combined with the vague and unsubstantiated claims in the letters, do not 
persuasively establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. While we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's claims and the authors' letters, the record does not indicate that the 
Beneficiary's ideas or approaches have been implemented such that the broader impact of his work is 
established. For instance, the Petitioner has not shown benefits to the gymnastics field as a whole as 
a result of the Beneficiary's techniques. If anything at all, the benefits have accrued to the Petitioner 
or an individual gymnast. The Petitioner has not shown benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Beneficiary's coaching work, and certainly none that reaches the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
As the Director stated, the record does not support a finding that the endeavor has potential to employ 
U.S. workers, let alone at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in the national importance determination 
because the Beneficiary's skills would impact other coaches in the field and would address the national 
shortage of elite gymnastics coaches. However, as explained above, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Even if we consider a national 
shortage of coaches as a persuasive argument, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence to 
substantiate how the Beneficiary's coaching would address a national shortage. Further, the 
11 In a recent case concerning an extraordinary ability determination, the court found that identical language in letters 
"suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letter.;' 
content." Hamalv. US. Dcp 'tofHomclandSccurity, No.19-2534, slip op. at 8, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021). 
6 
Beneficiary's expertise pertains to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Although the 
Petitioner claims that the Benet iciary's proposed endeavor adds tremendous value to the U.S. 
gymnastics field, the Petitioner has not persuasively established its claim. The Director specifically 
stated in its RFE that letters alone are insufficient to establish eligibility under this p rang and even 
with this notice, the Petitioner has provided little corroborating evidence to supplement these letters. 
While the individual gymnasts and the workplaces the Beneficiary serves certainly are valuable, this 
fact alone does not discharge the Petitioner's burden to establish the national or global implications of 
the Beneficiary's work. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the fir st prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.12 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. However, as the Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner 's appeal , we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner 's remaining appellate arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see 
also Matter of L-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). 
7