Date of Decision: January 2, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Sports Coaching
Petitioner Information
Profession: Sports Coach
Field: Coaching, specifically Swimming
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner demonstrated that she possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree. Her Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education, combined with over five years of progressive experience in sports coaching, meets the requirement for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. While the proposed coaching and training activities would benefit her trainees, they did not demonstrate broader implications for the field of sports coaching or competitive swimming on a national level.
Economic Impact: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her proposed endeavor would generate significant positive economic effects or employment opportunities for U.S. workers on a national scale.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to establish a Coordination and High-Level Training Center in the United States, focusing on long-term training for future athletes, particularly in swimming. Her plan included providing motor coordination and physical fitness training for children from a young age, identifying those with specific skills, and developing them into competitive athletes.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed work in sports coaching has merit but was not demonstrated to have national importance. The evidence provided, including letters from potential customers and articles on the value of sports coaching, was not sufficient to show that her endeavor would have a broader impact on the sports coaching field or the national economy. The decision noted that while sports coaching is important, the Petitioner’s specific endeavor did not rise to the level of national importance required under the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included the Form I-140 petition, labor certification, educational credentials, and letters detailing her coaching experience.
Further Submission on Appeal: Provided additional details on her proposed training center, letters of interest from potential customers, and articles on the importance of sports coaching.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was related to the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the national importance of the Petitioner’s proposed coaching endeavor. While the Petitioner presented a detailed plan for her training center and received interest from potential customers, the evidence did not show how her work would have a significant impact beyond her immediate clients.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Included letters from potential customers expressing interest in the Petitioner’s training programs.
Business Plan:
Provided a detailed plan for the proposed Coordination and High-Level Training Center.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable in this case.
Any other supporting documentation:
Articles and Reports: Submitted articles discussing the importance of effective coaching and the economic outlook for the sports coaching industry, but these did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner’s specific endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. While the Petitioner’s qualifications and proposed endeavor have merit, they did not demonstrate the broader national importance or substantial positive economic effects required under the Dhanasar framework. Consequently, the initial decision to deny the petition was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner must address these deficiencies in any future filings to establish eligibility.
