legal services and financial services
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to providing legal and financial services to clients nationwide and internationally
Evidence type: response to RFE
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not established that [the firm's] provision of financial and legal services to clients potentially located throughout and outside of the United States would be sufficient by itself to show his endeavor's national importance”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to operating in HUBZone
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not establish [the firm's] ability to qualify for HUBZone certification, and more importantly does not sufficiently show that a designated HUBZone is an economically depressed area”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to job creation and economic impact
Evidence type: business plan and response to RFE
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where [the firm] will operate is economically depressed, that the company would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that the endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 response to RFE insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to providing legal and financial services to clients nationwide and internationally. 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?