dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 08, 2025 In Re: 34941340 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts educator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification or that he merited a waiver of the job offer 
and labor certification requirements for that classification. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit 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 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,4 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or in the 
alternative an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
established that he had the US equivalent of a bachelor's degree and five years of progressive 
experience in his field. Additionally, the Director determined in a final merits determination that the 
Petitioner had not established he was an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner contests the 
Director's finding on appeal. 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
As evidence of an advanced degree the Petitioner provided a diploma and transcript from C-C-U-5 
with a major in Combat Sports and Chinese Martial Arts. The Petitioner was enrolled from September 
2013 to July 2017 representing four years of academic study. The Petitioner also provided a "course 
by course evaluation" from E-C-E- as evidence of the U.S. equivalency of his degree. The document 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
5 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals and organizations. 
2 
makes a summary determination of the U.S. equivalent of the Petitioner's degree and lists the courses 
he attended without providing a narrative explanation for the equivalency finding. Given the academic 
evaluation's lack of information regarding the title and equivalency of the academic record, the 
evaluation is of minimal probative value. Absent an explanation for the determination that the 
Petitioner's degree in Combat Sports and Chinese Martial Arts is the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's 
degree in Sports Science, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his foreign degree is the equivalent 
of a U.S. Bachelor's degree. 
As evidence of his five years of progressive experience in his field the Petitioner provides two 
employment verification letters on appeal. The employment verification letter from H-C-W-C­
indicates that the Petitioner began working as a full-time instructor in July 2017 and served as head 
coach from November 2017 to September 2019. The Petitioner's responsibilities included training 
instructors, teaching martial arts courses, dojo event planning, choreography and performance 
arrangements, and serving as a judge for martial arts school evaluations and competitions. The 
Petitioner also provided a letter from H-A-C-. The letter states that the Petitioner was employed as 
the CEO and Principal Instructor from September 2020 to the present. The letter states the Petitioner 
engaged in martial arts research and development, teaching martial arts classes and training martial 
arts coaches. The Petitioner's job duties and position description from the two employers contain 
similar descriptions of his role and responsibilities as an instructor. Moreover, the Petitioner has 
presented contradictory information regarding his "full-time" employment during this time period. 
The expert opinion letter from Professor M-R- states that the Petitioner began an apprenticeship in the 
United States in 2022 and carried out Martial Arts instruction at an elementary school. The letter from 
H-A-C- states that during this time the Petitioner was working full-time at the dojo abroad. As a matter 
of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron 
Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, we may give an opinion less weight if it is not in accord 
with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. The submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while 
undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible 
only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence of to determine a fact in issue."'). Due 
to the discrepancies between the expert opinion letters provided, they are insufficient to establish that 
the Petitioner has five years of progressive experience in his field. 
Because we cannot conclude that the Petitioner possesses a foreign education equivalent to a 
U.S. baccalaureate degree, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), we cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
To establish 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), 
summarized below: 
(A) An academic degree relating to the area of claimed exceptional ability; 
(B) Ten years of full-time experience in the occupation; 
3 
(C) A license or certification for the profession or occupation; 
(D) A salary or other remuneration that demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Membership in professional associations; and 
(F) Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. 
If an individual meets at least three of the regulatory criteria, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the individual's field. See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination). See also, generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
The Petitioner argues that he meets five of the six criteria to qualify as an individual of exceptional 
ability. The Director addressed all six criteria in their decision, although the Petitioner had claimed to 
meet only five. The Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted evidence to satisfy two of the 
criteria, relating to academic record and license to practice the profession. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that his evidence satisfies the criteria relating to membership, recognition and experience. 
As explained below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory requirements 
necessary to establish that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area ofexceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner cited his bachelor's degree in Combat Sports and Chinese Martial Arts as evidence that he 
has an academic record related to the claimed exceptional ability. We agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner established his degree relates to his claim of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner has met his burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence in the form ofletter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years offitll-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Director concluded that letters from several employers did not satisfy the requirements of this 
criterion. The Petitioner submitted several letters attributed to current and former employers, but only 
two of those letters include the required specific description of duties performed. Those two letters 
account for full-time employment experience beginning in November 2017. The Petitioner filed the 
current visa petition in January 2024. Therefore, the Petitioner has not accounted for ten years of full­
time experience in his occupation as a martial arts instructor. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
4 
A license to practice the profession or cert[fication for a particular profession or 
occupation 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had provided sufficient evidence of this criteria with 
evidence of his coaching license, archery certificate, and artistic dance license. We agree with the 
Director that this criterion has been met. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
Copies of certificates indicate that the Petitioner is a member and martial arts technical advisor for T-Y­
Culture and Arts Association. The Petitioner claims that the organization is a non-profit of professionals 
in traditional culture who organize cultural lectures on traditional Chinese culture topics. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirements for this criterion because he did 
not provide evidence that he is currently a member of the organization. The membership certificate 
submitted with the response to the RFE had a validity period between July 2019 and July 2021. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides an updated membership certificate showing validity from August 2023 to 
July 2025. 
The Petitioner submitted a document on appeal containing a description of T-Y- Culture and Arts 
Association. The description indicates it is an organization with 36 members organized to promote 
Chinese culture as a non-profit social organization. The membership certificate states that the association 
brings together "social elites" to "make traditional and classical arts more deeply appreciated." The 
Petitioner did not show that the association's members are professionals as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2) or that being a professional is a requirement for membership. 
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he 
meets the requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The plain language of the regulation calls for "evidence of recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field." As such, materials that identify an individual's 
achievements but not significant contributions to the industry or field cannot suffice to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements. See Matter ofEcheverria, 25 I&N Dec. 512, 518 (BIA 2011) (holding that 
the use of the conjunction "and" in a series of regulatory requirements "is a clear indication" that one 
"must satisfy each of the [listed] requirements"). 
As evidence of this criterion the Petitioner submitted multiple letters of support from individuals 
familiar with his career in martial arts. The letter from Y-L- describes the establishment ofl I 
I I in the United States and their plans for the Petitioner if his visa is approved. The letter does 
not satisfy the regulatory requirements above. 
The opinion letter from Professor M-R- describes the Petitioner's background and education in martial 
arts from 2013 to the present. The letter additionally described the Petitioner's apprenticeship in the 
5 
United States and teaching martial arts classes at a U.S. Elementary school in 2022. As stated above, 
this letter directly contradicts the employment letter from H-A-C- and casts doubts on the Petitioner's 
claim of foll-time employment. The letter concludes by providing excerpts from the other letters of 
support provided by the Petitioner with this application. While the letter describes the Petitioner's 
achievements in his professional life it does not provide a sufficient description of his "significant 
contributions" in his field. 
On appeal the Petitioner also provides a letter from J-Z- that describes his relationship with the 
Petitioner. The majority of the letter focuses on the writer's achievements and background rather than 
on the Petitioner's contributions to his field. The letter provides a list of individuals from whom the 
Petitioner has learned, describes the importance of preserving traditional martial arts, and compliments 
the Petitioner's skills as a teacher and performer. The letter concludes by discussing the Petitioner's 
involvement in founding in the United States. The Petitioner has claimed 
and provides evidence supporting, his desire to be an instructor at I I The letter from 
J-Z- is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has made significant contributions to his field as 
required by the regulation. 
The Petitioner also provided various awards for his performance in martial arts tournaments and a 
thank you letter from T-C-S-A- describing the Petitioner's efforts in providing lectures on Chinese 
culture across Taiwan. While these awards show the Petitioner's achievements in his field, they do 
not, in and of themselves, provide details of his significant contributions to his field. Collectively, the 
evidence provided in support of this criterium does not establish the Petitioner's substantial 
contribution to martial arts. Therefore, the petitioner has not met this criterion. 
For the reasons set forth above, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies at least three 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for 
exceptional ability classification. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
Although the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification under 
section 203(b )(2) of the Act, we will address the Director's determination that he did not establish his 
eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director found substantial 
merit in the proposed endeavor but concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has national importance and therefore did not meet the first Dhanasar prong. The Director 
also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, under the second and third Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he submitted enough evidence to establish eligibility, and that, by failing to 
give that evidence sufficient weight, the Director imposed an improperly strict standard of proof. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
See Matter ofBurbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 
6 
(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 the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 
F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt 
and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Director's decision reflects a careful and thorough review and analysis of the Petitioner's claims 
and supporting evidence under the first prong ofDhanasar. The Petitioner broadly contends on appeal 
that the Director did not give due consideration to his proposal to "build" the first degree granting 
martial arts college in the United States and instead focused on his role as a martial arts instructor. 
However, the letter from Y-L-, the President ofl Iwhere the Petitioner intends to work, 
indicates the Petitioner is to be hired as an instructor. The Petitioner has not provided evidence that 
he is a shareholder, board member, or would otherwise have a role in the formation or administration 
of the college. Even if the Petitioner had provided sufficient evidence that his role with the newly 
formed college was more than a faculty member, he has not established that the college itself would 
generate sufficient revenue or create sufficient U.S. jobs to rise to the level of national importance. 
The Director correctly concluded that the Petitioner's teaching activities would not rise to the level of 
national importance. 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. In 
Dhanasar, we further 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. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's contention that his knowledge of traditional Chinese 
culture and martial arts would contribute to the development of a successful society, as would any 
educational endeavor, he has not established that his proposed endeavor would have broader 
implications in the field of education or anthropology or impact anyone beyond the organization he 
works for and its students. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requirements for EB-2 classification or 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 reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7