civil engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: not specified
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS made contradictory statements, stating both that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance but also that "the evidence of record does not convey an understanding of how the [P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on the field, rising to the level of having national importance."”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but did not provide any analysis related to this determination.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 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 discussed civil engineering. 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?