electrical engineering
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 due to broad implications for energy efficiency, EVs, data centers, etc.
Evidence type: personal statement, recommendation letters, publications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner provided insufficient detail and documentation to substantiate that her proposed endeavor would have this wide-ranging impact on U.S. society.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor aligns with national STEM initiatives and critical and emerging technology
Evidence type: reference to National Science and Technology Council
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 personal statement, recommendation letters, publications insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to broad implications for energy efficiency, EVs, data centers, etc.. 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?