information technology
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Nebraska Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: his proposed endeavor will have a significant impact on the local and national economy by 'increasing operational efficiency', 'promoting innovation', and 'supporting economic development'
Evidence type: business plan, letters of recommendation, expert opinion letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to have a national impact on any of his claimed industries.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: his consultancy firm will generate jobs for U.S. workers and positively contribute to the U.S. economy
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 business plan, letters of recommendation, expert opinion letters insufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor will have a significant impact on the local and national economy by 'increasing operational efficiency', 'promoting innovation', and 'supporting economic development'. 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?