information technology
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects
Evidence type: general claims
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: professional plans
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his employment would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance”
page not extractedOpen 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 general claims insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects. 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?