semiconductor manufacturing
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 proposed endeavor has national importance due to semiconductor shortage and broader implications for the industry.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to government initiatives like CHIPS Act.
Evidence type: articles about U.S. government initiatives
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Although this evidence provides background information on the industry itself: and government efforts to support the industry; without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor does not meet the 'national importance' element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
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 expert opinion letter insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to semiconductor shortage and broader implications for the industry.. 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?