NOV272023_05B5203Decided 2023-11-27I-140

An exercise trainer and fitness entrepreneur from Brazil seeking an EB-2 National Interest Waiver had her appeal…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-2-NIWField: exercise trainer, group fitness instructor, and entrepreneur (fitness center business)Origin: Brazil
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification (no qualifying bachelor's degree equivalent) and failed to demonstrate national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework for the NIW.

In plain English

The petitioner, a Brazilian exercise trainer and fitness entrepreneur, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to open a fitness center in Florida. The AAO dismissed the appeal on two grounds: first, it reversed the Director's finding that she qualified for EB-2 classification, determining that her occupation does not require a bachelor's degree and that combining a physical education license with a lato sensu graduate certificate does not constitute a single foreign bachelor's degree equivalent. Second, the AAO affirmed the Director's finding that the proposed endeavor lacked national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, as the business plan's financial projections were unsupported and the submitted evidence failed to show the fitness center would have broader implications for the exercise/fitness field beyond serving local clients. Because the national importance element was dispositive, the AAO declined to address the second and third Dhanasar prongs.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The AAO agreed that the petitioner's proposed fitness center business (addressing obesity and weight loss) had 'substantial merit' under the first Dhanasar prong, recognizing the public health importance of the fitness field.

What failed: 1. The petitioner's Brazilian credentials (a physical education license combined with a graduate certificate) did not satisfy the requirement of a single foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree for EB-2 classification. 2. The proposed endeavor failed the 'national importance' element because the business plan lacked corroborated financial projections and the evidence did not show the fitness center would impact the broader exercise/fitness field rather than just local clients. 3. The expert opinion letter and industry reports were too general and not specifically tied to the petitioner's proposed endeavor.

Takeaway: NIW petitioners in the fitness or wellness industry must show their specific proposed endeavor has broader field-level or national implications — not just general industry importance — and must support all business projections with independent, corroborating evidence. Applicants should also ensure their educational credentials, standing alone as a single degree, clearly meet the EB-2 advanced degree requirement before filing.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • The AAO agreed that the petitioner's proposed fitness center business (addressing obesity and weight loss) had 'substantial merit' under the first Dhanasar prong, recognizing the public health importance of the fitness field.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The petitioner's Brazilian credentials (a physical education license combined with a graduate certificate) did not satisfy the requirement of a single foreign equivalent of a U.S
  • bachelor's degree for EB-2 classification
  • The proposed endeavor failed the 'national importance' element because the business plan lacked corroborated financial projections and the evidence did not show the fitness center would impact the broader exercise/fitness field rather than just local clients
  • The expert opinion letter and industry reports were too general and not specifically tied to the petitioner's proposed endeavor.
Find more EB-2-NIW cases with similar evidence patterns →
Evidence that persuaded the AAO

The proposed endeavor (fitness center business addressing obesity and weight loss) was found to have substantial merit under the first Dhanasar prong.

Where the evidence fell short

Academic credential evaluation combining a physical education license and a lato sensu graduate certificate — rejected as insufficient to establish a single foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.

Business plan projecting 19 employees, $3.7 million revenue, and $75,305 in federal taxes over five years — found insufficiently detailed and lacking corroboration for the financial/staffing projections.

Industry reports and articles on the economic benefits of immigrants, entrepreneurship, personal trainer demand, gym growth, obesity, and physically active populations — found too general and not tied to the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.

Expert opinion letter from a sports management professor — focused on the broader physical education industry and the petitioner's credentials rather than the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor.

Petitioner's resume, letters of recommendation, and personal statement citing 16+ years of experience — found relevant only to the second Dhanasar prong (individual's positioning), not to national importance of the proposed endeavor.

Officer errors the AAO found

The Director erroneously found the petitioner eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification; the AAO withdrew that finding because the petitioner's occupation as exercise trainer/group fitness instructor does not require a U.S. bachelor's degree for entry, and her combined Brazilian credentials (license certificate plus graduate certificate) do not constitute a single foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.

The Director found the petitioner well-positioned under Dhanasar's second prong without providing any reasoning or analysis.

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Exercise trainer, group fitness instructor, and fitness center business owner

Completed

Director — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2023-11-27

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification (no qualifying bachelor's degree equivalent) and failed to demonstrate national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework for the NIW.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.

Buy me a coffee
Authorities the office relied on
8 C.F.R. § 103.38 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (advanced degree equivalency)
ChawatheEstablishes the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof; evidence must show claims are more likely than not true.
Christa'sAAO reviews questions de novo.
DhanasarEstablishes the three-prong framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions: (1) substantial merit and national importance, (2) well-positioned to advance the endeavor, (3) waiving job offer benefits the United States.
PoursinaUSCIS's decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature.
Caron Int'lSubmission of expert support letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.
D-RExpert testimony may be given varying weight based on relevance, reliability, and overall probative value.
E-M-In evaluating whether the preponderance standard is met, both quantity and quality (relevance, probative value, credibility) of evidence are considered.
BagamasbadCourts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues whose resolution is unnecessary to the outcome; AAO declined to reach the second and third Dhanasar prongs.
L-A-C-Supports declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible.