geotechnical engineering / seismic…
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to importance of seismic design and mitigation strategies
Evidence type: support letters, industry articles, reports, government documents
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on a national or global level beyond his proposed employer and its prospective clients, or otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 support letters, industry articles, reports, government documents insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to importance of seismic design and mitigation strategies. 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?