electric vehicles (EVs) and automotive…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will accelerate EV adoption and boost U.S. economic growth.
Evidence type: policy documents, government sources, expert opinion letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these articles and reports about government initiatives and priorities do not establish the endeavor's national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor will have a broad impact on the EV industry.
Evidence type: updated plan, financial projections
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's claimed approach is unique or how it will broadly impact the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 policy documents, government sources, expert opinion letters insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it will accelerate EV adoption and boost U.S. economic growth.. 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?