language education
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 enhancing English proficiency and cultural immersion, contributing to economic growth and workforce integration
Evidence type: business plan, economic projections, national data, policy alignment
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks evidence showing that creating 23 direct jobs and 59 indirect jobs; paying over $1.4 million in payroll expenses; and generating over $941,000 in taxes by its fifth year of business rises to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives and has broad impact
Evidence type: independent opinions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the opinions mainly discuss the benefits of language education and cultural immersion without focusing on the specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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, economic projections, national data, policy alignment insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to enhancing English proficiency and cultural immersion, contributing to economic growth and workforce integration. 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?