dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 2, 2024 InRe : 31639847 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a judo coach and owner of a martial arts company, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 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). 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. Id. 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. Id. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. Id. A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least 
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. 
three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three criteria, 
however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 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 demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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,2 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined the Petitioner was an advanced degree professional because he received a 
Black Belt from the International Judo Federation Academy and owned a martial arts studio in Brazil. 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate stating "The Brazilian Judo Confederation confers to [the 
Petitioner] the graduation of Black Belt 3rd DAN." The Certificate is signed by the President of the 
National Graduate Council of the Brazilian Judo Confederation. The Petitioner also submitted a copy 
of a document which appears to confer "titulo de engenheiro textil" to the Petitioner from I II I The Petitioner did not submit a certified English 
translation of the document, as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires. The Petitioner also 
did not submit an official academic record or evidence that his Black Belt Certificate or titulo de 
engenheiro textil is the foreign equivalent of a United States advanced or baccalaureate degree, as the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) requires. The Petitioner also did not submit evidence that a 
U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into his 
occupation as a judo coach and martial arts company owner. Consequently, he has not demonstrated 
that he is a member of the professions pursuant to the definition of profession at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Petitioner has not established that he is an advanced degree professional and the Director's 
contrary determination is hereby withdrawn. 
2 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). 
2 
The Petitioner initially claimed he was an individual of exceptional ability who meets five of the six 
regulatory criteria to establish exceptional ability. As the Petitioner is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver for the reasons discussed below, we do not reach and hereby reserve determination of 
his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
B. Proposed Endeavor 
In his professional plan submitted initially, the Petitioner stated he would work as a judo coach and 
sports manager in the United States through his own company, a limited 
liability company (LLC) providing specialized training programs to improve the physical and mental 
health of children and adults. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner 
submitted a business plan for _______ which states the company's mission as providing 
"comprehensive and high-quality sports programs for schools," promoting student participation in 
sports and martial arts, and contributing to their physical, emotional, and social development. The 
business plan states the company will be initially based in the I I Florida area and would expand 
to other areas in the future. 
C. National Interest Waiver: Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework for evaluating national interest waivers is 
substantial merit and national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. This prong focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed 
area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within 
the field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond 
the individuals he would serve to impact the martial arts industry or field more broadly. The Director 
also concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate his proposed endeavor would have substantial 
positive economic effects for the nation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director disregarded his evidence and imposed a higher standard 
than preponderance of the evidence. Although the Director did not discuss every document submitted 
in detail, they listed the evidence submitted initially and in response to the RFE and analyzed the 
relevant evidence under the preponderance of the evidence standard. When USCIS provides a 
reasoned consideration of the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to 
3 
specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of 
evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. 
INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see 
also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); and Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 
1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). De novo review of the record also reveals no error in the Director's 
ultimate determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not have national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously concluded his proposed endeavor would not have 
substantial economic effects because his business plan and tax records show the economic impact his 
company is already having in the United States. The Petitioner submitted tax records showing his 
company earned an income of $65,000 in 2021. The Petitioner also submitted tax records showing 
his company employed two other individuals and its 2022 tax return. Because these latter records are 
dated in 2023 after the petition was filed in November 2022, they cannot be considered in assessing 
the Petitioner's eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(1 ); 
see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress did not 
intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified 
be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set 
of facts."). The Petitioner did not submit evidence that his company's income in 2021 was 
significantly higher than similar businesses, or otherwise indicative of his proposed endeavor's 
potential to have a substantial positive economic effect. 
In his business plan, the Petitioner stated he would be the Chief Executive Officer and Head Coach of 
his company. He projected his company would employ eight other individuals in the first year, 
increasing to 36 employees in the fifth year. The Petitioner projected earning a profit of $55,845 in 
the company's first year, increasing to $1,109,511 in the fifth year. The Petitioner did not show that 
such earnings are significantly higher than other companies in his field or would otherwise have a 
significant positive economic effect on a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims the Director disregarded the letter of Dr. A-J-R- 3, Lecturer at 
New Jersey. In her letter expressing her opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for 
a national interest waiver, Dr. A-J-R-states "[c]oaches and scouts play a critical role in the United 
States economy through their contributions to the sports industry and their role as employers." She 
does not discuss how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would make such contributions or 
otherwise have a significant positive economic effect indicative of national importance. 
Dr. A-J-R-also opines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance because it 
aligns with public health initiatives of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to 
promote physical activity for youth. The Petitioner submitted a report from the CDC entitled A 
Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk 
Behaviors and a United States Department of Education report entitled Creating Equal Opportunities 
for Children and Youth with Disabilities to Participate in Physical Education and Extracurricular 
Athletics. These reports discuss the role of school-based programs in the health and well-being of 
children, but they do not mention the Petitioner or address his proposed endeavor. Our assessment of 
national importance does not focus on the importance of issues to the field in general, but instead 
3 We use initials to protect the identity of individuals. 
4 
"focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner also asserts the Director disregarded evidence of "the enormous impact that [the 
Petitioner] is already having in the field of martial arts, the state of Florida and his community." As 
evidence of this impact, the Petitioner cites his past achievements, including his Black Belt and athletic 
titles, his tenure as President of the Brazil, his organization of judo 
competitions in Brazil, his training methods addressing bullying and people with disabilities, and his 
project to help at-risk children through martial arts. We do not discount the Petitioner's lengthy career 
and numerous achievements. However, his past accomplishments are relevant to the second Dhanasar 
prong which considers whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The 
evidence of the Petitioner's past achievements in his field does not establish that the impact of his 
proposed endeavor would extend beyond the individual students his company would serve to have 
broader implications for the martial arts industry. 
The Petitioner claims the Director did not consider letters from colleagues praising his past work. For 
example, A-M-C-, President of the in Brazil detailed the Petitioner's duties and 
accomplishments with thel Ifrom 2008 to 2021 and described him as an "exemplary 
professional" from whom "U.S. athletes would greatly benefit." S-A-B-, President of the I I I Ipraises the Petitioner's work as president of the and states 
he formally recognized the Petitioner's contributions with a tribute certificate in 2019. S-A-B­
concludes by "validat[ing] the qualities of [the Petitioner], whether in people management, 
management of large sporting events, technical quality, training of his team ... etc." ( ellipses in 
original). Dr. I-R- described his partnership with the Petitioner on sports medicine initiatives and 
recommends him "for the development of martial arts in the United States of America." The support 
letters from the Petitioner's colleagues praise his past accomplishments, skills and experience, but do 
not address the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. Cf.id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar 
submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to 
U.S. strategic interests). 
The Petitioner further asserts that letters from his students and their parents demonstrate the substantial 
contributions he has made to his field. For example, E-H-M-F- credits the Petitioner's I I 
program with preparing her to win numerous championships and changing her life and the lives of 
many other children the program served. She expresses confidence that the Petitioner's work "will be 
successful wherever he implements it ... especially in high-risk environments." L-C-B-R- states he 
saw "remarkable improvements in all aspects of [his] son's life" after his son enrolled in the 
Petitioner's martial arts program for children with intellectual disabilities. He expresses his 
confidence that the Petitioner's program can be applied to other people with Down's syndrome and 
"would cause an extremely healthy revolution in the quality of life of all patients with this syndrome." 
While the Petitioner's students and their parents praise the Petitioner's work and his positive impact 
on their lives, they do not address how his proposed endeavor would have broader implications in his 
field beyond the individual students his company would instruct. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact his field more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. 
5 
In sum, the relevant evidence demonstrates the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed work in 
his field but does not establish his specific proposed endeavor would have significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, other substantial positive economic effects, national or even global implications 
within the field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. Consequently, he does 
not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
D. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first Dhanasar prong. As this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 
n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6