industrial engineering
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: publication and citation record shows past work recognized
Evidence type: publication and citation record
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“It does not, however, establish the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it involves STEM and critical and emerging technologies
Evidence type: policy manual
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“simply working in a STEM field and with critical and emerging technologies alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While they attest to the Petitioner's skills and experience, S-F-, F-S-G-, M-N- and C-K- do not discuss any of the three projects specified in the Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it addresses high environmental and financial costs, aligns with government interest in AI, and aligns with national Advanced Transportation Technologies
Evidence type: articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“These articles discuss issues relevant to the Petitioner's research, but they do not address his specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 publication and citation record insufficient to establish that publication and citation record shows past work recognized. 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?