dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 34944768 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a finance and insurance manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See section 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding the Petitioner had not established a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the appeal. 
The matter is now before us as a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our decision on appeal, we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked specificity. In 
Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). The Petitioner 
described his endeavor as continuing his career as a financial and insurance manager helping U.S. 
companies implement process improvements and financial management standards to achieve 
corporate goals and revenue growth and creating mechanisms to allow intelligent decision-making on 
how and where to invest. We noted that his proposed endeavor as described indicated he would act in 
various and wide-ranging capacities, which included optimizing and supervising companies' financial 
operations, developing and implementing financial automation processes, providing financial 
management, working as an insurance manager, developing new research and studies on business and 
market trends, providing professional training, events, and classes, and acting as a consultant for 
companies, but concluded that he did not explain the logistics of his various roles. On motion, the 
Petitioner explains that his proposed endeavor is flexible, which allows him to work as a consultant 
and provide services to companies. The Petitioner's explanation does not add specificity to his 
proposed endeavor and the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage 
in a U.S. job search. As we noted on appeal, a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the 
occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically 
within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(O)(1), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing, as guidance, the term "endeavor" is more specific 
than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation). 
On appeal, we also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that his proposed endeavor was 
nationally important. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we overlooked his evidence, specifically 
his recommendation letters, industry reports, expert testimony, and media articles. However, the 
record does not support the Petitioner's assertions. In our appeal decision, we reviewed the 
Petitioner's articles, reports, U.S government web pages and concluded they did not address the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or show that his proposed endeavor would broadly impact the 
finance and insurance field as contemplated in Dhanasar. On motion, the Petitioner again discusses 
data on the impact of the insurance and finance industry. However, we explained that 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. We also addressed the 
Petitioner's recommendation letters from former colleagues, but they also discussed the importance 
of the finance and insurance fields and declared the Petitioner's abilities would greatly enhance those 
fields, without illustrating how the services he intended to provide individual companies would have 
impact on the relevant fields at a level commensurate with national importance. We also concluded 
the Petitioner's expert opinion letter likewise did not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
would impact the finance and insurance fields beyond the individual corporations the Petitioner would 
work for or have an economic impact on par with national importance. See id. at 889-890 (explaining 
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" or "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area"). 
The Petitioner also argues that we did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard and erred 
by not recognizing the broader implications of his work and its potential positive economic effects. 
However, the Petitioner does not explain how we applied the incorrect standard in concluding he did 
not establish the national importance of his endeavor, and his motion reasserts arguments already 
addressed on appeal. For example, the Petitioner highlights the financial impact he had at his former 
employers as a financial manager, referring us to his employment records demonstrating his successes, 
and asserts he will replicate the same financial results at U.S. companies through his outstanding work. 
He also discusses his work as an insurance broker where he, for example, negotiated two large 
insurance contracts and increased the coverage of employees. He says he trained 18 underperforming 
employees and some received promotions after the training sessions. He also notes how he updated 
2 
and improved guidebooks. He asserts his skills will, for example, streamline financial processing and 
enhance business processing for U.S. companies translating to the greater U.S. economy. He adds that 
his knowledge will undoubtedly advance U.S. government initiatives and spread financial education 
among U.S. citizens. However, as we explained on appeal, the Petitioner's arguments for the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor rested on examples of his past performance and did not explain 
how his specific endeavor would have abroader impact on the finance and insurance industries beyond 
the impact on his partner companies. Moreover, the Petitioner's reliance on his past experience and 
claimed knowledge, skills, and abilities is misplaced, as they relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which looks at whether the individual is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 
890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. While the Petitioner makes general claims, for example, that his endeavor 
will advance U.S. government initiatives, streamline financial processing for U.S. companies and 
generate substantial economic impact by creating hundreds of jobs, as we discussed on appeal, he does 
not demonstrate with evidence in the record how his financial and insurance manager services would 
have a broader impact in the industry or would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without corroborating evidence, 
the record does not sufficiently demonstrate benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from his services or position that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or policy in our prior decision or 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time. 
Accordingly, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3).1 Consequently, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner submitted an economic impact analysis with his motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider must 
establish that our last decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceeding at the time of the decision 
to be reconsidered. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. 
3