renewable energy forecasting
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
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it advances the energy field.
Evidence type: expert letter, utility director letter, government reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor could advance the energy field nationwide by improving the efficiency of the country's electrical grid.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his education and skills.
Evidence type: education, work experience, project plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“He has not established, however, that he is well-positioned to advance the venture.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 education, work experience, project plan insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his education and skills.. 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?