dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Soccer Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 23, 2024 In Re: 29808518 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a soccer coach, 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established 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. 
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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) 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 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue to work as 
Head Soccer Coach at.__ ________ ___, a company he established in 2021. He asserted that 
"works with students of different ages, providing physical training, and works on~-------~ their technique and understanding of the game, to improve their skills and overall results in different 
tournaments." The Petitioner further stated that his "goals are to improve the quality of U.S. soccer; to 
increase the quality of life of my students/players/ and of the population in general; and to promote a 
healthier lifestyle." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that 
his proposed endeavor's duties and responsibilities include "designing training programs, coaching 
athletes in the fundamentals of the sport, organizing soccer camps and boot camps, and international 
exchange (training and tournaments)." 
In addition to company formation and operation documents, the Petitioner submitted the business plan 
for.________ ~ This business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about 
the company and its sports services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a 
discussion of the Petitioner's education and work experience, and a description of company personnel. 
Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company will employ 4 
personnel in year one, 6 in year two, 8 in year three, 12 in year four, and 20 in year five, but he did not 
elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. 
Furthermore, while his plan offers revenue projections of $340,900 in year one, $473,851 in year two, 
$653,914 in year three, $915,480 in year four, and $1,299,982 in year five, these projections are not 
supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The record includes information about soccer's health benefits, coaching and scouting occupations, 
"Healthy People" objectives, physical activity guidelines, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Service's "National Youth Sports Strategy," and U.S. demographics and statistics for head coaches. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing college-going benefits of high school sports 
participation, factors relating to healthy development for children and adolescents, the International 
Sports Programming Initiative, and the contribution of sports to the achievement of sustainable global 
development and peace. We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes the 
Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant 
question is not the value of youth sports, physical activity, or the Petitioner's general occupation; 
instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact 
of his specific proposed endeavor. 
2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from S-L-L-, M-J-R-, M-S-, A-N-S-, L-Y-, F­
A-, A-C-, M-M-, E-B-, A-M-, J-P-, L-P-, A-A-, D-W-, L-G-, T-W-, E-W, J-S-, M-A-B-, L-M-, J-M-, 
L-D-, S-T-, N-H-, L-H-, A-P-, D-B-, L-S-, P-S-, J-M-, C-M-, S-B-, H-W-, P-W-, F-G-, J-A-, V-S-, 
and S-R-M- discussing his coaching capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, 
and prior work in his field, however, relate 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 he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's 
first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted "Expert Opinion Letters" from Dr. A-J-R-, a lecturer atl 
Dr. J-E-, an adjunct professor at.__ ______ __, K-M-, Vice President of~t_h_e.....l------1 
I I and Dr. D-S-A-, a clinical associate professor at~_______ __.in support of his 
national interest waiver. Dr. A-J-R-, Dr. J-E-, K-M-, and Dr. D-S-A contend that the Petitioner's 
proposed work is of national importance because of the value of physical activity, the popularity of 
soccer, the projected U.S. job demand for coaches and physical educators, an ineffective soccer player 
development system in our country, and the U.S. childhood obesity epidemic. The issue here, 
however, is not the national importance of physical activity in general, the sport of soccer, the U.S. 
player development system, or the occupation in which the individual will work; instead we focus on 
the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The letters 
from Dr. A-J-R-, Dr. J-E-, K-M-, and Dr. D-S-A- do not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed work as a soccer coach and sports consulting business operator offers broader 
implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, contributions to public health, or 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking "has the potential to create a significant economic impact" or offers 
"broader implications" in his field. The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had not shown his 
proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "will broadly enhance societal 
welfare." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor "offers specialized services that transcend 
the conventional boundaries of coaching" and that [t]hese services stand to benefit not just individual 
players, but the sports community and, by extension, the nation." The Petitioner, however, has not 
provided evidence demonstrating that his company's services stand to offer benefits beyond the youth 
and athletes participating in his specific sports programs. 
The Petitioner also asserts that "his specialized knowledge in mJury prevention and rehabilitation 
embedded within soccer training is unique and fills a crucial gap in the sports industry," but the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's 
specialized knowledge in his field. The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and knowledge. 2 
2 See Dhanasar at 899-90. 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that "the remote services his company plans to offer could revolutionize 
soccer training across the country, democratizing access to high-quality coaching," The Petitioner also 
claims that "the educational opportunities [he] offered through scholarships will significantly impact 
the broader social fabric . By giving financially disadvantaged young players a chance at higher 
education, he is effectively contributing to breaking the cycles of poverty and inequality on a larger 
scale." Again, the Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence indicating that the benefits of his 
undertaking extend beyond the participants in his company's specific athletic programs and sports 
services at a level indicative of national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner points to his plan to organize "soccer tournaments in the U.S. aimed at 
uplifting the standard of the sport within the country. By offering U.S. teams the opportunity to compete 
with international teams, he is contributing to improving the quality of soccer in America, thereby 
strengthening its international standing in the sport." The record, however, does not include evidence 
indicating the size and scope of these proposed soccer tournaments. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to offer soccer training and sports injury rehabilitative 
services to his company's clientele, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. For example, he has not demonstrated that his involvement as a sports program coordinator 
and soccer coach stands to affect U.S. soccer or public health interests at a level consistent with having 
national importance. Nor has he shown that his proposed endeavor is at a level that would offer 
national implications in his sport, or that the implications of such work otherwise stand to impact his 
field more broadly. 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, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his company's programs and their participants to impact his sport, public 
health, societal welfare, U.S. cultural interests, governmental initiatives, or our country's economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Arizona or the United States. While 
4 
the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner has asserted that his endeavor will create new job opportunities, he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that his proposed work offers Arizona or the United States a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. 
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. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under 
the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner 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 reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5