The Petitioner, an insurance underwriter and certified actuary specializing in contingency insurance, intended to open a U.S. contingency insurance and underwriting firm offering personalized solutions primarily to the sports, leisure, and entertainment industry, while also assisting insurers to increase contingency capacities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that her company's addition to this market would create a potential prospective impact on the field as contemplated by Dhanasar”

“We are unable to clearly determine what by what metrics this area of insurance is "underdeveloped," how the Petitioner would impact or develop the market”

“she has not put forth evidence showing that her expected payroll taxes or the jobs she will create should be considered substantial”

“A review of the Petitioner's business plan and personal statements does not reflect an intent to focus her efforts in such markets or in rural areas of the U.S.”

“these factors tend to support her positioning to carry out the endeavor; they do not, themselves, establish that her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not reflect an intent to focus her efforts in such markets or in rural areas of the U.S.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · credited
• resume experience · credited
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “we cannot determine that the impacts would meet the Dhanasar standard”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's prong-one analysis as not fully comporting with Dhanasar and not fully addressing the record, but nonetheless independently found prong one unmet on de novo review. AAO also rejected post-filing UK business earnings evidence submitted on appeal as reflecting actions taken after the petition's filing date, per the rule that eligibility is assessed at time of filing.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers