automotive safety 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: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: description of proposed endeavor, RFE response
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: letters of endorsement, published material, industry articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: STEM degree, critical technology, positioning
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets Dhanasar's third prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
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 description of proposed endeavor, RFE response insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.. 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 letters of endorsement, published material, industry articles insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's STEM degree, critical technology, positioning insufficient to establish that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?