aviation consulting
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner asserts his company has national importance because it will enhance global competitiveness and national security and because it aligns with national goals related to sustainable aviation.
Evidence type: articles and orders
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“These articles and orders do not discuss the Petitioner's company or establish its potential prospective impact.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner claims his company has national importance because it will promote aviation safety and public welfare, environmental sustainability, and community development.
Evidence type: no evidence cited
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner does not cite any evidence to support these claims, and the Petitioner does not establish how his company's work would extend beyond individual airports and airlines to impact the management consulting or aviation industries more broadly at a level indicative of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor has national importance because it will make economic contributions to the United States, will provide economic revitalization to underserved areas, and has significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
Evidence type: business plan projections
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner's business plan projects his company will employ four individuals in the first year, increasing to 21 in the fifth year. The business plan predicts the company will generate a net profit of $34,965 in the first year, increasing to $143,525 in the fifth year. These projections do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will have substantial positive economic effects in the management consulting industry”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner states he intends to operate his company in economically distressed areas.
Evidence type: evidence of high economic distress scores
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner submits evidence of the high economic distress scores of these areas, but does not establish that his company would employ a significant number of U.S. workers in these areas as the business plan predicts his company will employ at most 21 individuals.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner submitted support letters from professionals who praise his past accomplishments.
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“These letters do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed company has national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDWhat 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 turned on national importance. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's articles and orders insufficient to establish that the Petitioner asserts his company has national importance because it will enhance global competitiveness and national security and because it aligns with national goals related to sustainable aviation.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- 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?