Sports: mixed martial arts athletics and training
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, and it reserved the second and third prongs.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
The petitioner, an athlete and athletic trainer, sought a national interest waiver after the Director of the Nebraska Service Center found exceptional ability but denied the waiver. On de novo review the AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but held that national importance was not shown. The record did not show effects reaching the field of martial arts beyond the students coached, and the economic and industry figures did not describe the endeavor's own impact. The appeal was dismissed and the remaining prongs were reserved.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and consequently |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO agreed with the Director that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but held that national importance was not established.
- The record did not establish that the endeavor would impact the field of martial arts or athletics more broadly than the students the petitioner would coach, comparable to the classroom teaching example in Dhanasar.
- The business plan's industry statistics described the importance of the industry rather than the economic impact of the specific endeavor, and a professor's letter lacked probative value because it largely repeated counsel's claims.
- The petitioner did not provide enough information to understand how the claimed techniques and methods would elevate the field at a level commensurate with national importance.
- Because the first prong was not met, the AAO did not decide the second and third prongs.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
- Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988)
- Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary