dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Actuarial Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 19, 2023 In Re: 27415535 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an actuary, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement " in the national interest." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish an insurance consulting services business in the United States 
having previously worked as an actuary in Brazil. 
The Petitioner provided his academic diplomas and transcripts to demonstrate qualification for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional. The record indicates the 
Petitioner earned an Executive MBA in insurance froml llnstituto I lin Brazil; 
an MBA in actuarial and finance management from Universidade I I in Brazil; and a 
bachelor of actuarial science from I I Universidade ~------~in Brazil. The 
Director did not make a determination whether the Petitioner established his eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has demonstrated 
being a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on the equivalency of his foreign 
degrees being above that of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that 
while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. Upon 
de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
A. Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit 
The Petitioner initially submitted a professional plan and statement with his Form 1-140 petition 
indicating that he proposed to continue working as an actuarial consultant by starting an insurance 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
consulting services business. In a reply to a request for evidence, he submitted a business plan further 
describing his proposed new business,,______________ ___,for which he would be 
its chief executive officer and actuarial consultant. The business plan states that the business would 
provide the following consulting services: insurance risk assessment and brokerage support; 
construction project risk analysis and brokerage support; private companies collective risk health 
insurance portfolio project covering COVID-19; and private companies insrance glid portfolio 
review and assistance development. The business would have its main office in Florida and 
another office irl INew York with a focus of providing insurance consulting services to new 
businesses and small business association companies. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
For the first time, on appeal, the Petitioner raises in his Counsel's letter a new proposed endeavor, 
"working for any company or individual in need of his services." The appeal also reiterates the 
Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor stating, "It also involves working towards the promotion and 
development of his own company in the [United States]." The Petitioner raising for the first time on 
appeal the possibility of working for a company constitutes a materially different endeavor and 
changes the focus of the Petitioner's endeavor from what he indicated in his petition. The Petitioner 
did not acknowledge or explain this material change. The Petitioner's plan to work for a company or 
individual will not be considered in this decision, and we limit our decision to the proposed endeavor 
stated in the Petitioner's initial petition, establishing an insurance consulting services business and 
being its chief executive officer and actuarial consultant.4 
B. Proposed Endeavor's National Importance 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish "that the proposed endeavors(s) will have potential prospective impact, 
such as evidence that the endeavor will have broader implications, or national or global implications 
within a particular field. Therefore the [P]etitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is 
of national importance." The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper 
standard of proof, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erred by not giving "due regard" to the 
evidence submitted, specifically the Petitioner's business plan, his statement, and industry reports and 
articles. Upon de nova review, we find the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor satisfies 
the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
4 USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition 
is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). A petitioner may not make material changes to the petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The 
Petitioner cannot materially change the proposed endeavor after submitting his petition. If significant, material changes 
are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that 
is not supported by the facts in the record. 
3 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner's stresses his more than 25 years "of progressive experience and acumen in 
the business and finance fields" and his educational credentials to argue that his "work offers broad 
implications to the [U.S.] business and finance industries, specifically through his endeavors within 
key commercial segments." The Petitioner argues his proposed endeavor "will benefit the [United 
States] by creating jobs and economic stability." He relies on his background to emphasize that he 
"has brought numerous advantages to the companies that he has served ... " by stimulating "his served 
companies' economic capacities" and prioritizing "customer satisfaction by ensuring all projects are 
aligned with customer's actual needs, furthering customer loyalty." The Petitioner argues "the [United 
States] would benefit from investing in well-versed business professionals such as [the Petitioner], 
who are knowledgeable regarding potentially profitable markets for U.S. companies in regions that 
are economically and politically strategic, yet extremely complex." He contends his advice to 
"corporations about potential opportunities for business development and economic growth" would 
"have multiple positive effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf 
of the national and contributing to a streamlined economic landscape." The Petitioner asserts his 
"proposed endeavor is clearly of national importance, when considering how much a professional with 
his caliber can contribute to the national interests, and to the U.S. economy, regardless of a labor 
certification." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on his academic credentials, achievements, and professional 
experience to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His academic 
credentials, achievements, and professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. See id. at 889. 
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 record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the U.S. 
business industries and the field of insurance, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's insurance consulting services 
would impact the insurance field more broadly. 
With the petition, the Petitioner submitted a statement contending his proposed endeavor has national 
importance based on the potential economic benefits asserted in the appeal. However, the Petitioner 
has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his statements and his business plan, 
that his business's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States. The 
Petitioner's claims that his insurance consulting services business will benefit the U.S. economy with 
his contributions to the business and finance industries being "concrete and substantial" has not been 
established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient 
4 
to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide economic benefits to the United States. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job 
duties as the chief executive officer and actuarial consultant for his business would impact the 
insurance industry more broadly rather than benefiting his consulting business and his proposed 
clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, which explains: his intended ownership and financial 
investment in the business; establishment of two offices in underutilized business areas in I I 
Florida andI I New York; the business's products and services and an analysis of the demand 
for these insurance products and services; and the business's proposed marketing, staffing, and 
financial forecasts. The business plan briefly indicates that it proposes to establish the business in 
underutilized business zones, claiming this will generate jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized 
areas, will improve the wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, and will help the local 
communities by bringing "investments to the region and economic development." However, while 
the business plan provides a descriptions of the proposed consulting business, its establishment in 
underutilized areas of Florida and New York, an extensive analysis of the insurance industry market 
for the insurance products and services to be provided by the business, and the Petitioner's experience, 
it does not document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic benefits to the 
United States. 
The business plan projects that in five years the consulting business will hire 25 direct employees 
which will generate wages of 2.47 million dollars, create 84 indirect jobs, pay over three hundred 
thousand dollars in federal taxes, and generate over four hundred thousand dollars in commercial rent 
income to the local communities. The record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and 
staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. 
The Petitioner also has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his business plan, 
that his business's future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to underutilized areas of Florida, New York, and the United States. While the Petitioner 
expresses his desire to contribute to the United States and its underutilized areas, he has not established 
with specific, probative evidence that his endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will 
have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive economic 
effects in an economically underutilized area. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims 
will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 25 direct jobs and 84 indirect jobs, and 
paying wages of 1.84 million dollars, federal taxes of over three hundred thousand dollars, and 
commercial rent of over four hundred thousand dollars over a five-year period rises to the level of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in insurance industry reports and articles. The reports and articles relate to financial 
managers, investments in capital, how the stock market affects the U.S. economy, the financial 
services industry, United States' economic benefits of international trade and foreign direct 
5 
investments, retail banking, economies of the richest countries in the world, worker growth and 
shortages, and immigrants' positive effects on U.S. businesses and entrepreneurship. 
We recognize the importance of the insurance industry and related careers, the significant 
contributions from immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs, and the positive effects 
foreign investment can have in U.S. businesses; however, merely working in the insurance field or 
starting an insurance consulting business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]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. The industry reports and articles submitted do 
not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
We further note the record includes an expert opinion from I I professor of finance at
I ]university, which includes an analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. The opinion states, "[The Petitioner] would work in the United States in an area 
of substantial merit and national importance." The opinion explains the expected growth of job 
opportunities for actuaries in the insurance industry. However, the opinion's focus on the need for 
actuaries and how the Petitioner's professional experience makes him well positioned to help the 
insurance industry with his professional skills, does demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor 
having a prospective impact in her field. The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor and it having apotential prospective impact on the U.S. economy, or in the field of insurance. 
Simply stating that his work would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national 
importance" requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
The opinion also explains that companies doing or planning to do business abroad would benefit from 
the Petitioner's expertise since he has "an intimate and first-hand knowledge of the Brazilian financial 
arena." However, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor includes 
collaborative works between U.S. companies and Brazilian companies, or that he is actively targeting 
U.S. companies that do business, or plan to do business in Brazil. Where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give 
it less weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of el igibi I ity. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). The content of the opinion is lacking relevance because 
it discusses how the Petitioner's expertise would be beneficial to U.S. companies doing business in 
Brazil; instead of addressing how the specific proposed endeavor would satisfy the national 
importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his 
future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
6 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the 
work he proposes to undertake as the chief executive officer and actuarial consultant of his proposed 
insurance consulting business offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in his 
industry or otherwise has broader implications for his field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claimed depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary 
tie between his proposed business's insurance consulting work and the claimed economic results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7