dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sports Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 23, 2024 In Re: 31671957 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 I&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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. According to a 
personal statement provided with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that she intends to act as a Public 
Administration Expert in Sports. In the business plan provided by the Petitioner in response to a 
request for evidence issued by the Director, she stated that she intends to open a company which "plans 
to organize sport events, conferences, forums, workshops, master classes, and trainings from American 
sport industry representatives for CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries' athletes, 
coaches, and sport federations representatives." Her business plan further stated that the company will 
be established "with the expectation of developing cooperation between United States and CIS 
countries in the field of sports." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that her company will require a diverse range of professionals, and 
that "by inviting these individuals to participate, [her] company creates employment opportunities for 
U.S. workers in various sectors related to sports and event management." She further states that the 
"influx of events and the corresponding demand for services contribute to job creation and economic 
growth in the United States," and that her endeavor has a potential to boost local businesses. In 
addition to her statements and business plan, the Petitioner provided articles relating to the importance 
of sports and health; however, the matter here is not whether these topics are nationally important. 
Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of 
providing her services as a Public Administration Expert in Sports in thel INY area. In her 
RFE response, the Petitioner further provided multiple letters of intent from businesses in the United 
States and abroad that indicated the potential work they could conduct together, which the Petitioner 
asserts on appeal were overlooked by the Director and "provide compelling support for the importance 
of [her] plan and its relevance to the American economy." However, these letters relate more to the 
second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
In Dhanasar, we 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 the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
2 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond her prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while she provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible 
or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales from $620K in year 1 to 
$1.5M in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation 
of 3 positions in year 1 and 14 positions in year 5, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of 
these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits 
to the INY region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize 
a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic 
growth, either regionally or nationally. Further, the Petitioner's statements on appeal regarding the 
potential for "the exchange of goods, services, and expertise further enhancing economic ties and 
opening up new markets for American businesses," are not supported by evidence. For all these 
reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective 
clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level 
of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
The Petitioner also submits new evidence, in the form of letters from potential investors in her 
company. Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this 
evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(11) (requiring 
all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 
(BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "petitioner was put on 
notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before 
the denial"). 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful 
2purpose. 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
4