technology development…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statements, letters from Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“we conclude that the decision does not sufficiently analyze the record under Dhanasar 's first prong”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: personal statements, letters from Director
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“a remand is appropriate for SCOPS to consider the statements in the record”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: on balance, waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS' analysis of the third prong of the Dhanasar framework also contains similar deficiencies.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
What this decision can’t tell you
This decision comes from a case that was denied and then appealed. Every case here is in that position — it cannot be used to estimate an overall approval rate, and it cannot predict the outcome of any individual case, including yours. USCIS officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed technology development…. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- What in my own case most resembles the specific facts USCIS focused on in this decision?
- Would additional expert-opinion evidence have changed the outcome here, based on what USCIS said was missing?