law and mediation
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: business plan, letters, expert opinion
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we affirm SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 8Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: resume, letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not unequivocally support SCOPS' summary conclusion that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 9Open source PDF
Prong 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, letters, expert opinion insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's resume, letters insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 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?