public policy
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: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While these articles discuss the importance of these issues, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or national issues in general, but instead 'focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the support letters submitted in response to the RFE praise the Petitioner's past work and express confidence in some of the projects encompassed by her proposed endeavor, but they do not establish that her proposed endeavor has national or even global implications or other broader implications in her field.”
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 articles insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance. 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?