international trade with specialization…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it expands U.S. exports of electronic components to Brazil and aligns with U.S. strategic trade priorities
Evidence type: business plan, financial statements, statistics, documents relating to business in Brazil
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not contain sufficient relevant or probative evidence showing that the economic effects of the Petitioner's company's activities will be substantial or that the secondary or indirect economic benefits of her proposed endeavor would rise to [a] level commensurate with national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 business plan, financial statements, statistics, documents relating to business in Brazil insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance because it expands U.S. exports of electronic components to Brazil and aligns with U.S. strategic trade priorities. 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?