cybersecurity and information assurance
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: APPROVED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: expert opinion letters support national importance
Evidence type: expert opinion letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the expert opinion letters do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor and therefore do not support assertions regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letters of interest and collaboration show national significance
Evidence type: letters of interest and collaboration
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters praise the Petitioner's qualifications and professional accomplishments, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: work in cybersecurity would have national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter does not adequately discuss the proposed endeavor, making only broad statements about the Petitioner's intent to develop AI-powered cybersecurity solutions within the scope of the banking industry, and it offers no explanation as to how the endeavor will 'protect[] the financial well-being of millions of Americans' as to impact the cybersecurity industry or the country as a whole.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: DHS report and articles show national importance
Evidence type: DHS report and articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“neither the report nor the articles specifically mention the Petitioner, his work, or any government interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI-driven cybersecurity initiative and job creation
Evidence type: implementation plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence in support of these projections or demonstrate that such future staffing levels would result in substantial economic benefits to the region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
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 expert opinion letters insufficient to establish that expert opinion letters support national importance. 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?