Date of Decision: September 7, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Exercise Physiology
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Exercise Physiologist
- Field: Exercise Physiology
- Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner, an exercise physiologist who described herself as a “wellness specialist,” sought classification under the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and requested a national interest waiver. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the petitioner qualified for the advanced degree classification, she did not demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviewed and dismissed the appeal.
Key Points from the Decision
- Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner proposed to open a company in the U.S. offering services such as Pilates and massages, aimed at improving patients’ mobility and overall quality of life. She planned to focus on helping special populations, including veterans and the elderly, with personalized fitness and rehabilitation services.
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: While the petitioner’s endeavor had substantial merit in areas such as health and wellness, the AAO concluded that it did not meet the national importance criterion required under the Matter of Dhanasar framework. The AAO noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific operational details, such as projected annual revenue, the number of workers she intended to hire, or the broader economic impact of her business. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide a detailed business plan or evidence of how her endeavor would have a significant national impact beyond benefiting her local clients.
- Supporting Evidence: The AAO reviewed letters of support from a former supervisor, a patient, and a program director, but found that these did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor. The AAO emphasized that while the petitioner’s work might benefit her specific patients, there was no evidence to show broader implications for the U.S. healthcare system or economy at a national level.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had national importance. As a result, she did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
