dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sports Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 23, 2024 In Re: 29666798 
Appeal of Texas 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 the underlying immigrant classification. The Director further concluded that 
the Petitioner 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. 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 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 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In addition, "profession" is defined as of the occupations listed in 
section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree 
or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3). 
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, 
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. 
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, 2 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Prior to issuing her decision, the Director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE) informing the Petitioner that the evidence to establish that he had obtained the required five 
years of progressive experience in addition to his bachelor's degree was insufficient. After reviewing 
the evidence, the Director denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner had a bachelor's 
degree, he had not established the required five years of progressive experience "in the specialty." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2); 204.S(g)(l). We will therefore first consider whether the evidence establishes 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
With the filing of his petition, the Petitioner provided an academic and experience evaluation letter, 
copies of his diploma and school records, a work experience letter, and copies of the articles of 
incorporation for three companies with which the Petitioner has been involved. The Petitioner 
provided a business plan with his petition in which he stated that he endeavored "to enter the U.S. by 
establishing and operating a Training Center which will provide high-level training services, and 
soccer and lacrosse equipped fields." The Petitioner indicated that his company "will offer training 
programs, equipment and spaces to conduct its operation." In response to the Director's RFE, the 
Petitioner provided a letter from an accountant familiar with the Petitioner's companies, a letter from 
the President of the ______________ in Brazil, and a letter from A-R-A-,3 
an associate professor. The record reflects that the Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree in 
physiotherapy from _____________ in Brazil in 2004, which the Director 
concluded is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. As noted by the Director, the work experience 
letter indicates that the Petitioner worked for a soccer team in Brazil from "March 2000 to July 2000" 
and is insufficient to establish the Petitioner's experience, as it lacks specific information regarding 
the Petitioner's dates of employment and duties. 
The letter provided from S-P-, the Petitioner's accountant, indicates that he has familiarity with the 
Petitioner's establishment of a gym in 2001, and states that the Petitioner's business "endured until 
2010, when [the Petitioner] was invited to participate in another challenging venture and sold the 
2 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). 
3 We use initials to protect the identity of individuals. 
2 
facilities, retaining the property that continues to be used for the same purpose as its foundation." 
S-P- goes on to discuss the Petitioner's involvement with an energy drink brand in 2010, and notes 
that the Petitioner "led the financial management" and notes that the company's success, along with 
the Petitioner's real estate acquisitions and further establishment of a brewery. 
The letter from A-G-R-S-, the President of the _______ in Brazil, indicated that the 
Petitioner established a physiotherapy clinic and a "modem gym," and that the Petitioner's gym 
business has "favor[ed] [their] community for over 20 years." When comparing the letter from 
S-P- with the letter form A-G-R-S-, it is not clear how long the gym has been open, or for how long 
the Petitioner was involved, as S-P- indicated that the Petitioner sold the facilities in 2010 and 
A-G-R-S- indicated that the gym had been in the community for over 20 years. The letter from A-R-A­
stated that the Petitioner "was hired in 2011 to implement the Partners for Excellence Program," which 
was related to the Petitioner's other companies, and indicated that the Petitioner was responsible for 
"the Financial sector's Management" and that A-R-A- "followed the group's monthly meetings" for 
more than 10 years, where the Petitioner "actively participated in various internal seminars taught by 
professors" from the foundation. However, these letters did not provide specific dates of the 
businesses with which the Petitioner was involved or describe in detail his duties and involvement 
with them. Regarding the copies of the articles of incorporation provided by the Petitioner, they also 
do not include specific dates, details, and duties for which the Petitioner was responsible. The 
Petitioner further had submitted numerous certificates of completion for training courses; however, 
the total hours represented on these certificates does not account for at least five years of progressive 
experience in his specialty. 
In our de novo review of the record, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish his 
five years of progressive experience. Evidence relating to experience has specific requirements, as 
defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ), and although it also notes that if such evidence is unavailable, we 
will consider other documentation relating to a petitioner's experience, each of the letters provided 
include only general details, without specific dates or duties of the Petitioner. Although on appeal the 
Petitioner contends that the Director failed to acknowledge his resume, a self-reported resume without 
corroborating evidence is insufficient for us to conclude that a petitioner has established his experience 
by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. 4 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As previously outlined, in order to qualify 
for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for classification under 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability. The Petitioner has not shown that he is an advanced degree professional. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
4 The Director also conducted an analysis of whether the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. On 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that he never requested to be considered under this classification, and only wished to be 
considered a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. As such, we will not review the Director's 
determinations on this matter. 
3 
classification. Because this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 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