dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Soccer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2024 In Re: 32906555 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a soccer director, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 that the record 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 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 I&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. 
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 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
The Petitioner proposed to establish and serve as the CEO for a non-governmental 
soccer organization offering youth and community development, and health promotion programs. The 
Petitioner asserts her organization could help refugee and newcomer youth integrate into communities 
and offer opportunities to displaced and marginalized youth. The Petitioner believes her prior work 
for the in the positions of administrator, coordinator, and director, in 
the soccer industry have equipped her for this endeavor. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. 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. at 889 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner had demonstrated the substantial merit of her 
endeavor, she had not established its national importance to satisfy prong one of the Dhanasar 
framework. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director's denial misapplied the preponderance of 
evidence standard and national interest waiver criteria, as the evidence of record demonstrates she is 
a member of a profession holding an advanced degree who merits a national interest waiver. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims the Director "completely disregard[ ed]" her submitted business plan 
and erroneously conflated the analysis of her endeavor's positive economic effects with whether these 
effects take place in an economically depressed area. 
But in their decision, the Director specifically referenced the Petitioner's submitted business plan and 
relied upon it to specify the details of the Petitioner's endeavor. The Director further referenced the 
Petitioner's business plan in discussing its employment, revenue, and expansion projections. We also 
do not find the Director conflated the analysis of the Petitioner's endeavor's positive economic effects 
with whether the effects would be in an economically depressed area. Rather, the Director determined 
overall it was "not apparent that the specific proposed endeavor would affect any region where she 
[would] pursue her specific proposed endeavor or the United States' tax revenue, or their economies 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also indicated that as 
the Petitioner only generally identified the state in which she plans to pursue her endeavor, the Director 
could not conclude whether the Petitioner was pursuing her endeavor in an economically depressed 
area. The Director further could not conclude the specific proposed endeavor would lead to the 
employment of a significant population of workers in the area or that the region would gain a 
substantial positive economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, investment, or 
related tax revenue as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner asserts the Director failed in their consideration of the record, as the Director's request 
for evidence analyzed the submitted letters of recommendation for national importance. The Petitioner 
contends the letters of recommendation were submitted, not to demonstrate national importance, but 
to support the additional Dhanasar prongs outlined above. However, in making this assertion, the 
Petitioner implicitly concurs with the Director's statement that her letters ofrecommendation "do not 
2 
... meaningfully demonstrate how [the Petitioner's proposed endeavor] would have national 
importance." Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown the Director erred in this analysis. 
The Petitioner reasserts on appeal the factors she claims demonstrate her endeavor is of national 
importance and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement 
of a job offer, and thus, labor certification. However, after reviewing the entire record, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's determination relating to the national importance requirement under Dhanasar's 
first prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 
F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has 
been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Martinez­
Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve our determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. 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 ofL-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3