dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Taekwondo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15896144 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 11, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a taekwondo athlete and coach, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he 1s eligible for exceptional ability 
classification and a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: "Exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) 
sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner asserted that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
fulfilled only the license to practice the profession criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner claims that he also meets the ten years of full-time experience 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), and 
the recognition for achievements criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), but he does not specifically 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact relating to the Director's determinations 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
for these criteria. 3 Nor does the appeal brief even reference the Director's discussion regarding the 
aforementioned criteria. Additionally, while the Petitioner asserts that "[b ]ased on the evidence 
submitted," he has met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) and (F), the Petitioner does not 
identify the evidence. Furthermore, with regard to the recognition for achievements criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), the appeal brief states: "Attached hereto please see additional evidence 
describing [the Petitioner's] achievements and providing specific examples of how [the Petitioner] is 
well positioned to advance his endeavor and confirming that [the Petitioner's] work has influenced his 
field of endeavor." The appellate submission, however, was unaccompanied by additional evidence 
relating to his taekwondo achievements and work in his sport. Without offering specific arguments 
or evidence to overcome the Director's findings, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required 
for exceptional ability classification. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
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. The 
Petitioner argues on appeal that "USCIS should have found that [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor 
will have potential national importance." For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner indicated that he intends 
to continue his career as a taekwondo athlete and coach. He asserted that he is a current member of USA 
Taekwondo and that he lans en a e in his sport as both a competitor and a coach. The record includes 
two letters from stating that the Petitioner has been working at, ~------, , 
~------- as "a member of our team of expert martial arts professionals." 4 ~-.-----.---~s 
8/4/2018 letter explained that the Petitioner's proposed work as an instructor for involves 
"demonstrating proper taekwondo techniques," "sharing his extensive experience" in the sport, and 
"passing along his skills and abilities to the next generation." In addition,! I noted thatc=] 
"will continue to help [the Petitioner] further his skills and career" and "find competitions to participate 
in and have him represent our club." We agree with the Petitioner that his proposed work as taekwondo 
athlete and coach has substantial merit. 
3 For example, regarding the ten years of full-time experience criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), the Director's 
decision discussed conflicting information relating to the Petitioner's ·'dates and places of employment" provided in the 
employment letters and on his Form ETA-750B and Form I-485 accompanying the petition. The Petitioner's appellate 
submission does not address or resolve these discrepancies with independent, objective evidence pointing to w~ 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 591-92 BIA 1988 . In addition, the record includes two letters fromL___J 
I I, head coach a..___ _____ .....---,,__ __ ___. dated 8/4/2018 and 8/5/2020. I ts 2018 letter 
states that the Petitioner has been a member of s "team of expert martial arts professionals since March 2018," while his 
2020 letter indicates that the Petitioner been with "since March 2016."I Is second letter does not explain 
his reason for changing the date of the Petitioner's initial employment from March 2018 to March 2016. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
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 
implication s 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed work "will provide a significant national benefit by 
promoting sport of Taekwondo and training next generation of exceptional athletes." He asserts that his 
undertaking stands to "have a broad impact in the U.S. beyond that of benefiting [the Petitioner] or his 
direct employers."5 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfie s the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner 's documentation reflects his intention to compete and coach on behalf ofc=] he has not 
offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. For example, he has not demonstrate d that his 
involvement as a competitor stands to impact USA Taekwondo , the U.S. national team, or his sport at 
a level consistent with having national importance. Nor has he shown that his propo sed coaching work 
is at a level that would offer national implications for taekwondo instruction , or that the implications 
of such work stand to impact the sport more broadly . InDhanasar , 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 record does not show that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond c:=J to impact the sport of 
taekwondo more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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 . Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's competing and coaching would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner 's propo sed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar , therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
5 The Petitioner also discusses his athletic and coaching accomplishments, but these claims regarding his past record of 
success in his sport relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, 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