dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26934395 Date: MAY 18, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an insurance sales manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and for a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must 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. In addition, 
a petitioner must show they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As it relates to the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's initial 
cover letter indicated: 
In the U.S., the Petitioner endeavors to work as an Insurance Sales Advisor via her own 
company,,__ ________ where she will apply her fifteen (15) years of 
knowledge and experience as a Sales Manager - 10 of which were within the Insurance 
field - to assist companies in ensuring that millions of Americans can obtain quality life, 
property, and health insurance. 
Further, the Petitioner's letter stated: 
Based on my 15 years of experience in the market, acting strategically within the sales 
area, I opened my own company calledl Ithrough which I will 
provide services including Insurance Advisory and Management .... 
clientele is not a limited group of designated companies. The 
company's services are made available and promoted to benefit all American business 
organizations and institutions in need, regardless of geographic location or industry type. 
I am confident that I will contribute in a significant manner towards the growth of the 
North American market. I will dedicate myself to provide consultancy to companies, 
proposing solutions that can generate results and impact the national scene as I did in my 
previous projects. 
In response to the Director's notice ofintent to deny, the Petitioner submitted a business plan for 
I I claiming: 
Guided by [the Petitioner],! IInsurance Consulting will offer a diversified 
portfolio of insurance consulting services in-person as well as online. Through the 
Company, [the Petitioner] will recruit and train insurance agents, as well as provide 
consultancy services to insurance companies. [The Petitioner's] main objective is to train 
people who have not had an opportunity for professional development as well as insurance 
agents who do not have experience. In doing so, [the Petitioner] will make a significant 
contribution to communities across the U.S. 
As an expert in her field, [the Petitioner] will provide clients with personalized advice to 
make sure they acquire the right mindset in improving their insurance policy sales and 
business operations. Having extensive hands-on experience in insurance policy sales, the 
Company will be able to prepare insurance agents and companies for the job market, as 
2 
opposed to getting an insurance agent license through a preparatory course for the national 
exam. Going through a prep course and getting a license does not provide insurance 
agents with any preparation to sell insurance, but rather focuses on theoretical content. 
I I Insurance Consulting will prepare these insurance professionals through an 
individualized mentoring program that will address marketing, sales, persuasion, and 
negotiation techniques. This approach will help them in increasing their personal or 
company sales, generate profit, and grow their business operations. 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. 
I 
On appeal, the Petitioner 
I
maintains the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor of operating and points to an opinion letter from I II I who asserted that the endeavor "has significant national and global impact, considerable 
potential to employ U.S. workers, and has other substantial positive economic effects." For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the national 
importance aspect of her proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record contains 
documentation relating to insurance agents, the occupational outlook for insurance agents, and 
information about the insurance industry. In addition, Iletter discussed "some of the 
contributions of the Insurance Industry to individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole." Here, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of owning 
and operating an insurance consulting company rather than the importance of the insurance industry 
or insurance agents. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and that "[aa ]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. Besides providing a conclusory opinion,I Idid not explain or 
articulate how the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor will have national importance; instead,O
I I focused on the overall insurance industry, the economic aspect of insurance, national 
initiatives, and individual and societal welfare. 
In addition, the Petitioner, as well asl Iand other reference letters contained in the record, 
stress the Petitioner's "knowledge and experience. " The Petitioner's experience and abilities in her 
field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
Although the business plan indicates the company will specialize in recruiting and training new and 
experienced insurance agents, the plan makes no specific, credible projections as to the number of new 
and experienced agents it expects to recruit and train. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not 
3 
impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Even though the Petitioner asserts that her company "will 
help create a qualified workforce, thereby contributing to fulfilling U.S. industry needs," the record 
does not show through supporting documentation how her company stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond her prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show her initial proposed endeavor offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. The business plan does not reflect that her company's future business activities 
and staffing levels stand to provide substantial economic benefits to specific regions or to the United 
States. While the net profit forecasts range between $16,860 to $107,658 from years 1 to 5, they do 
not indicate the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the company's profits 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. Similarly, although the business plan claims the company would create 27 jobs by year 5, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic 
benefits to the I I Florida or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that the I I Florida area is 
economically depressed or that the company would utilize a significant population of workers in the 
area. Although the Petitioner claims that "while hiring 27 employees within 5 years may not seem 
significant, it can substantially impact job creation and economic growth," the Petitioner does not 
point to evidence or substantiate her assertion showing how the hiring of 27 employees would 
substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these 
reasons, the record does not establish that, beyond the benefits provided to its clients and employees, 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. We also reserve 
a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, as either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability.2 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) (stating that ·'courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
4