civil engineering

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-06-10·REMANDED·IN RE: 38905229

Underlying petition: DENIED ·

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance

Evidence type: not specified

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but did not establish that it is nationally important.

Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance the endeavor

Evidence type: not specified

USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED

the decision contains contradictory statements, stating both that the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and that the Petitioner has met this prong.

Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

What 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 not specified insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built