dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Fitness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: June 25, 2024 In Re: 31415522 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physical fitness instructor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
framework outlined in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in finding that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is not of national importance, that he is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, 
and by not considering the opinion from the industry expert contained in the record. In support, the 
Petitioner submits abrief, reasserting his eligibility and citing to the evidence and arguments contained 
in his initial filing. 
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. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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,1 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director did not address the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification; however, because 
we are dismissing this appeal on the dispositive issue explained below, we reserve our review of the 
Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 
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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. 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. Id. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer detai Is not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As such, we will 
first identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is to work in the United States as a fitness director. 
He contends than an expert fitness director can have a positive impact on the United States "by 
designing programs that promote healthy behaviors and lifestyle habits, reducing healthcare costs, and 
supporting economic growth." Additionally, he contends that obesity in the United States is a 
significant public health issue, a major risk factor for many chronic diseases, and a significant 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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 
contributor to healthcare costs in the United States, and expert fitness directors like himself play a vital 
role in developing wellness programs that prevent obesity. 
Upon de novo review, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas and it has positive objectives. However, as discussed below, the 
Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the evidence he submitted, including "citations to objective, 
reliable research in support of the national importance of' his work as well as two expert opinions 
which conclude that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance and establish 
that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. He contends that preventing chronic diseases 
and promoting mental health through the promotion of physical fitness is nationally important, and 
fitness directors like himself are "essential to improve the global advantage of America, and 
additionally, contributing for the economic development of the country and health industry." 
Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the societal interest in combating obesity, reducing the risk of 
chronic diseases associated with obesity, and improving overall health. However, this misapplies the 
Dhanasar framework. While we acknowledge that it may be reasonable to conclude that fitness 
directors can develop wellness programs that may prevent obesity and promote healthy lifestyle habits, 
we agree with the Director in concluding that the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its operations to impact the field of 
physical fitness or the U.S. physical fitness and health industry more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance - and given the commonality of the position, a single fitness director does 
not usually have national importance. Likewise, the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
that his endeavor will "improve the global advantage of America" and contribute to the "economic 
development of the country and health industry," instead, the record indicates that the Petitioner's 
endeavor will only benefit his clients and would not have broader implications in the field. The 
evidence on record also does not support that the services provided by the Petitioner will directly result 
in broader implications or meaningfully address obesity rates on a scale commensurate with national 
importance. Further, while the Petitioner has provided numerous articles discussing the importance 
of physical fitness and disease prevention, these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's endeavor, nor 
do they establish how the benefits provided to his clients would result in broader national implications, 
and generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In addition, while 
we acknowledge the submitted expert opinions; however, the issue here is whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and expert opinions are relied upon 
in determining whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and not in 
demonstrating the national importance of the proposed endeavor. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that his proposed endeavor reaches a level of national importance to warrant a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. 2 
2 As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. Supra at INS v. Bagamasbad. 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4