construction quality control
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: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it supports U.S. military and government infrastructure.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter, industry reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently establish how the Beneficiary's work as an individual quality control manager for a single company would rise to the level of national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Professor does not explain, and the record does not demonstrate, how working as an individual quality control manager for a single company generates such significant economic activity that it would rise to the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 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 expert opinion letter, industry reports insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it supports U.S. military and government infrastructure.. 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?