dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Wrestling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22718062 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 28, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner is qualified 
as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the Applicant's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 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. ... the 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. 
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). 1 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, 2 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national 
importance of his particular proposed endeavor. 4 The Director explained that the Petitioner's evidence 
did not show that his proposed work as a freestyle wrestling athlete and coach would have broader 
implications at a level indicative of national importance. For the following reasons, we agree. 5 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated before the Director that he "seeks 
employment in the field of freestyle wrestling [and will] increase the athletic competitiveness of U.S. 
athletes on the national and international level." He stated that he "plans to represent I I 
University's [R-'sll I wrestling club ["the club"] and compete at national wrestling 
competitions hosted by USA Wrestling and NCAA Wrestling." He asserted that through winning 
wrestling competitions he will "increase the Freestyle Wrestling teams' competitiveness, by simply 
motivating [other] athletes to outperform [him]." He also presented a "resident athlete" employment 
contract with the club through which he will compete in wrestling matches for the club and also "assist 
with fondraising and making [public] appearances for the club and [R-]." 
The Petitioner also stated that he will be engaged in coaching activities for other freestyle wrestling 
athletes. The record included letters of support from wrestling athletes and coaches who contend that 
the Petitioner's proposed work "will substantially benefit the United States." For instance, Head 
Wrestling Coach at R-, I I indicated in his letter that the Petitioner has "a unique aability 
to share his passion for the sport of wrestling", is a "fan favorite", "trains with the University 
wrestling program .... and USA wrestling," and "continues to train alongside other Olympic and 
World hopefuls." He explained that the Petitioner "is a member of our Club, competing and providing 
guidance to our athletes and coaches," asserting that "the positive impact of [the Petitioner's] expertise 
will be felt nationwide due to the extensive participation of our athletes in major national-level 
competitions where they will excel and challenge others." 
In another letter,I I from the organization, Athletes in Action, writes that in 2018 the 
Petitioner came to the United States as a "junior wrestler" and stayed at his home while he trained 
with wrestlers at the University of I andl I College." He contends that 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Director also determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit under Dhanasar 's first prong, 
and that he is well-positioned to pursue this endeavor under its second prong. He further concluded that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated 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 under Dhanasar 's third prong. 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
the Petitioner "in every way exemplifies the best aspects of the I school of wrestling .... he has 
taken the time to go to different teams and share his technique with them, asking for nothing in return." 
The Director determined that the reference letters and the other information provided by the Petitioner 
about his proposed endeavor were not sufficient to demonstrate its national importance. Specifically, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently described his plans for accomplishing 
his goal of"increas[ing] the athletic competitiveness ofU.S. athletes on the national and international." 
The Director concluded that while the record reflects his intention to compete on behalf of R-'s 
wrestling club 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. He noted, for 
example, that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his involvement as a competitor stands to impact 
R-'s wrestling club or his sport at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the 
implications of such work stand to impact the sport more broadly. Furthermore, the Director stated 
that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications, such as a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor has national importance, stating: 
[The Petitioner] is a professional Freestyle wrestler and has vast experience in wrestling 
instruction and training areas. As confirmed by experts, [his] work is in demand and of 
national importance in the field of health science. . . . Upon being granted permanent 
residency, [he] will implement his knowledge in wrestling training to clients in the area 
of sports and fitness in the United States. Through his excellent foundation as a Freestyle 
Wrestler, he will coach people to accomplish their goals in the health and sports field. 
Ultimately, he will implement his unique methods and training to educational institutions 
and other fitness programs in the United States. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the significance of his wrestling knowledge, skills, and experience on appeal, 
but collectively considering the evidence of record, we conclude that the evidence does not sufficiently 
explain the national importance of his proposed work under Dhanasar' s first prong. The Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, and experience in his field 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. Nonetheless, while we agree with the Director that the record adequately shows 
the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed work, but for the reasons discussed below, the 
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the competitive wrestling and 
coaching endeavors he proposes to undertake. 
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 "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 "[aa ]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. 
4 
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. Although the 
Petitioner contends that his participation in athletic competitions will motivate U.S. wrestling team 
athletes to outperform him, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
his involvement as a competitor stands to impact these wrestling teams or his sport at a level consistent 
with having national importance. Nor has he shown that his proposed U.S. coaching work is at a level 
that would offer national implications for his sport, or that the implications of such work stand to 
impact the sport more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his wrestling students. 
For example, the some of the reference letters and the Petitioner's own statements allude to the 
significance of the Petitioner's "uniquely effective training methodologies and techniques." 6 Notably, 
the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate what his unique wrestling techniques 
and training programs actually are; nor has he shown that his methodologies have been widely adopted 
by others engaged in his sport, or that they otherwise prospectively stand to broadly influence the freestyle 
wrestling sport. 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. 
The Petitioner's proposed work therefore 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 third 
prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 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. 
6 See, for instance, Head Coach I letter. 
7 It is unnecessary and would be an unwise use of the government's time and resources to analyze the remaining 
independent grounds when another is dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding 
it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
5