civil engineering

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-10-18·DISMISSED·IN RE: 34508926

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will address labor shortages and technological lag in the construction industry.

Evidence type: business plan, letters of support, articles

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the construction industry, the paving industry, or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.

Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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 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 of support, articles insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it will address labor shortages and technological lag in the construction industry.. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built