human resources and marketing…

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-05-01·DISMISSED·IN RE: 37915061

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance.

Evidence type: business plan, opinion letters, client letter

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

the totality of the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor may have broader implications indicative of national importance

Decision PDF, p. 1Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: The business plan's financial information is reliable.

Evidence type: business plan

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan's wage information is undermined

Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

What 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, opinion letters, client letter insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built