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
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to unprecedented scale and scope of H&H models
Evidence type: conference invitations, articles, letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not include sufficient evidence that these presentations will lead to broader implications rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, certifications, conference invitations, publications, and letters
Evidence type: conference invitations, Google Scholar profile, letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not adequately demonstrated that his academic and professional accomplishments are sufficient to establish that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 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 conference invitations, articles, letters insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to unprecedented scale and scope of H&H models. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's conference invitations, Google Scholar profile, letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, certifications, conference invitations, publications, and letters. 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?