urban and regional planning
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 will benefit economically depressed areas
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks specificity regarding how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have this impact”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to field-wide impact
Evidence type: expert opinion letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the authors describe the proposed endeavor's impact with general assertions and do not include sufficient supporting evidence”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor will create jobs
Evidence type: statistical report
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not provide information on how much money her proposed endeavor will invest in public transportation”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 expert opinion letter insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor will benefit economically depressed areas. 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?