dance and self-enrichment education
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“these letters and the expert opinion letter do not constitute evidence that the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
p. 5
“we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has met the required elements of this criterion to establish at least ten years of full-time experience”
p. 3
“without evidence of the membership requirements, we cannot conclude that [association] is a professional association”
page not extracted
“the catho.com website screenshot does not offer sufficient information or details to verify the applicability and accuracy of the stated salary information”
p. 4
“there is no evidence that being a member of this union is either a license to practice the asserted profession of self-enrichment teacher or a certification for a particular profession or occupation”
p. 4
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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed dance and self-enrichment education. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?