dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 In Re: 30336393 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an insurance specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports that determination. The remaining issue to be determined on 
appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner intends to develop a business through which he will provide risk-management 
consultancy services to small businesses and sell insurance policies to individual clients. He plans to 
operate his company in Texas within the region comprising 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor to provide consultancy and insurance sales 
services and contribute to the U.S. economy has substantial merit. The Director concluded, however, 
that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Director examined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and determined that its anticipated 
economic impact would not reach the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director added that, in order 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. Id. at 889. In addition to the endeavor's limited 
prospective economic effects, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that 
his business would employ a significant population of workers in the locality where he intends to 
operate. The Director also determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would not substantially 
benefit the regional area through increased employment, business activity, trade, or tax revenue. 
Further, the Director addressed the Petitioner's claim of shortages in his area of expertise, stating that 
shortages in a field do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor stands to have an impact on the 
broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance. The Director 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
explained that the Petitioner's skills and experience that he intends to apply to his endeavor do not 
demonstrate the national importance of that endeavor; the Director referenced Dhanasar, wherein 
users 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. The Director also addressed articles 
and reports submitted to demonstrate the importance of the field, stating that users cannot conflate 
the importance of a field with the national importance of a petitioner's 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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains how he will operate his company and the importance of insurance 
in the economy. The Petitioner does not identify any erroneous determinations or reasoning in the 
Director's decision. An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner has not described 
the basis of his appeal beyond reiterating his assertion that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide insurance sales and consultancy 
services for individual clients and small businesses, he has not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner's statements and business plan outline generalized descriptions of the 
services that the Petitioner intends to provide and discuss, in broad terms, the potential of his business 
to impact the economy through the creation of direct and indirect jobs. The Petitioner also states that 
he will "[ o ]perate in regions and markets where large companies are not interested, to promote 
economically depressed areas and appreciation of the local market." These statements and the 
business plan, however, and are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate his claims. The 
Petitioner further states that he will hire six employees; the record, however, does not contain evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate the potential positive impact of the Petitioner's small business on the region 
in which he intends to operate his company. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the importance of knowledge transfer, stating that he will share his 
business knowledge with future employees. 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. Here, we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the 
insurance industry, the field of insurance sales, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is one of national importance as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
3 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4