information technology
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: not specified
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States”
page not extractedOpen source 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. 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?