civil engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Letters of recommendation support his well-positioned status
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters contain conclusory statements or characterizations about the Petitioner and his work that are not sufficiently supported by specifics”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor based on his professional plan, letters of interest, academic credentials, record of success, and industry engagement
Evidence type: professional plan, letters of interest, academic credentials, record of success, industry engagement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's education and experience demonstrate he is well-positioned
Evidence type: bachelor's degree and over 20 years of experience
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it does not establish that his bachelor's degree alone is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Professional plan and letters of interest outline strategy for partnerships
Evidence type: professional plan and letters of interest
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided further evidence, such as any contracts or agreements, to show he has established partnerships with these companies.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that letters of recommendation support his well-positioned status. 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?