civil engineering
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 endeavor will create 21 direct jobs and 42 indirect jobs.
Evidence type: business plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not substantiate how employing 21 workers with certain job titles and duties addressed in the business plan may be significant”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will boost productivity of American construction companies and create jobs.
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate how his company's activities may have national or even global implications within the field of civil engineering or any other field”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The financial forecast shows significant potential for economic effects.
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the financial forecast appears to be arbitrarily determined without substantiation”
page not extractedOpen 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 insufficient to establish that the endeavor will create 21 direct jobs and 42 indirect jobs.. 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?