dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Reinsurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL 29, 2024 In Re: 32196665 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In dismissing the appeal, we acknowledged the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor and 
agreed with the Director that he did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). The dismissal also detailed the reasons why 
the evidence on record did not establish that the Petitioner's proposal to become the business 
administrator in the global reinsurance market met the standard of national importance set forth under 
the first prong of Dhanasar. We explained that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, instead repeatedly emphasizing 
the importance of the reinsurance industry in general. Further the Petitioner did not provide 
documentation to corroborate his assertions that the prospective impact of his work as the managing 
general agent with the proposed company, I I would have an impact beyond his prospective 
clients to impact the economy more broadly, or how the economic projections would impact the 
economy. 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains we erred in the analysis of the importance of the impact of the 
Petitioner's endeavor on the reinsurance industry, natural disaster management and engineering 
projects. He also asserts that the dismissal failed to consider the positive economic effects that 
managing general agents such as the Petitioner can have on the economy and on small businesses. 
The Petitioner has not provided new facts or documentary evidence showing that he meets the 
"national importance" requirement of Dhanasar's first prong, and therefore he has not overcome our 
prior determination. The Petitioner submits a brief, information on the managing general agent role, 
a more detailed description of the business model for the proposed endeavor, I I and a press 
release on the insurance and reinsurance industry, among other documents. In the description of the 
endeavor, the Petitioner again explains the importance of the digitalization of the reinsurance industry 
and how his company would connect current and future platform participants. However, this 
information is not significantly different from statements regarding the proposed efficiencies made in 
the business plan previously submitted. Similar to other documentation included in the initial filing 
and appeal, the information on the managing general agent role and press release on the insurance 
industry address the national importance of the reinsurance market generally but not the specific 
proposed endeavor. The motion to reopen is therefore dismissed as the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements of such a motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Regarding the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner alleges we failed to apply the correct standard of 
proof, the preponderance of evidence, in our appellate decision. Notably, he does not offer any specific 
instances in which we held the evidence to a standard above the preponderance of the evidence. The 
Petitioner claims on motion that the information on the reinsurance field and the managing general 
agent demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor without stating how our prior decision 
erred in law or policy. In the dismissal, we reviewed each piece of evidence in the record and considered 
the arguments raised by the Petitioner. We concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance because the documentation 
emphasized the importance of the reinsurance industry generally and did not demonstrate how the 
specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications within that field. The Petitioner has not 
explained how our decision to dismiss the appeal was erroneous or how we failed to properly apply 
the preponderance of evidence standard. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts the appellate decision overlooked information demonstrating the influence 
of the proposed endeavor on the reinsurance industry, and that the decision erred in relying solely on 
economic figures and employment generation. We determined that although the revenue forecasts are 
projected to be $2.5M and create 10 positions in year 5, the Petitioner did not show how these future 
projections impact the economy. On motion the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the financial 
projections were improperly adjudicated on appeal and relies on general information regarding the 
economic benefits of small businesses to reassert that the proposed endeavor would have a national 
impact. The Petitioner also reiterates his exceptional abilities in the field, although we noted in the 
dismissal this relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis. Disagreements with our conclusions 
without showing that we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of 
2 
the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. See O-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. at 58. The 
Petitioner's motion does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reconsider because he 
does not establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3