environmental design / eco-friendly…

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-11-19·DISMISSED·IN RE: 40156354

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance.

Evidence type: listing of completed projects

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

the Petitioner does not explain how her past projects are relevant in determining the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor

Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.

Evidence type: business plan

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the business plan makes no specific projections about the planned market share and only broadly refers to its 'target market'

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 listing of completed projects 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