dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Insurance Brokerage

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2023 In Re: 27855563 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of insurance brokerage, 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. § 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility 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 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 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 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion , 1 grant a national interest waiver 
if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. 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 record includes a business Iplan in lhich the Petitioner describes his endeavor to operate an 
insurance brokerage company in Florida. The business plan states the following: 
THE COMP ANY will be specialized in the commercialization of different types of 
insurance products and services throughout the American territory, both for individuals 
and for legal entities. THE COMP ANY will have strong and clear differentials capable 
of making it stand out from other players in the market and establish itself quickly and 
effectively in the United States.... [The Petitioner] intends, with the creation of THE 
COMP ANY and its sustainable and scalable growth, to contribute to the strengthening 
of the American economy and generate more direct and indirect jobs for American 
workers, making THE COMPANY in the Unites State' national interest. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "erroneously denied" the petition and "imposed novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." The Petitioner, 
however, does not specify how the Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 3 The 
Petitioner also contends, without farther explanation, that the Director applied a stricter standard of 
proof than that of preponderance of the evidence 4 and disregarded the evidence submitted. The 
Petitioner provides a brief that emphasizes the Petitioner's qualifications as an entrepreneur and asserts 
that the evidence of record establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. On appeal, 
the Petitioner states the following: 
Overall, the Appellant's direct knowledge of the business and insurance brokerage 
industry will benefit any U.S. companies and individuals that need qualified 
professionals who possess expertise in financial market products, insurance, 
administration, accounting, financial controls, planning development, negotiation, 
credit management consulting, recover of credit companies, ability to form strategic 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 An appeal must specifically identity any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
4 See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421,431 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance 
of an occurrence taking place). 
2 
partnerships. His knowledge and connections have assured his success in the steady 
and strong company operations flow, which he plans to continue to infuse in the U.S. 
Through his wide range of distinctive industry roles, the Appellant has broadly 
impacted business management and insurance brokerage. More so, as demonstrated 
by the submitted Industry Reports and Articles, the Appellant's proposed endeavor is 
unquestionably of national importance, given the significant impact of the role that 
business development and sales professionals play in every type of business. These 
articles demonstrate the national importance of the Appellant's proposed endeavor, 
explicitly due to its economic implications-which very much affect nationwide 
activities and business productivity. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
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 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 farther 
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. Further, 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. 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 includes evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that he has experience in the 
insurance industry and as entrepreneur in Brazil. Letters of support from former colleagues and 
business associates speak to his talents and accomplishments in his various business ventures. We 
note that the Petitioner's experience is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, but to 
the second-whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Neither the 
letters nor any other evidence within the record provides insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to 
build an insurance consultancy company inl IFlorida, will positively impact the region or the 
industry beyond any clients to which his singular business will provide consultancy services. 
The record also contains articles and industry reports discussing immigration, entrepreneurship, 
finance, and shortages among certain business professionals. While the Petitioner previously asserted 
3 
and now reiterates on appeal the significance of this material in establishing the national importance 
of his endeavor, we examine the endeavor itself to evaluate its broader impact. The business plan 
emphasizes that benefits his company will provide include "strengthening of Insurance Brokers & 
Agencies in US and Finance and Insurance in the US, two of the industries driving the US 
economy .... " General assertions about his company's potential impact are not supported in the record 
by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions, and a lack of detail concerning his 
intentions makes it difficult to discern how the Petitioner's endeavor differs from that of other 
entrepreneurs in the field who operate independent consultancy firms in the United States; the 
Petitioner has not shown how his own business will impact the economy or the industry at a level 
commensurate with national importance. We note that, although the business plan references potential 
investments into the company, the record does not include any documentation to substantiate that 
reference. And as the Director's decision noted, the growth, revenue, and hiring projections provided 
in the business plan are not accompanied by an explanation of the sources used for those calculations. 
The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet his burden of proof. A petitioner must 
support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. The evidence ofrecord does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the 
United States. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 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 demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4