information technology

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-08-19·DISMISSED·IN RE: 31032073

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

Other findings in the decision

Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.

the Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed or provided comparative information to establish that his education, work experience, training, and the numerous certificates for courses he completed differentiate him from other information technology professionals

p. 5

the Petitioner has not established he meets at least three of the six initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) as is required to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability.

p. 3

read the full decision (PDF) →

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 information technology. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built