financial management
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“A credential evaluation in the record indicates that the Petitioner completed "one year of undergraduate coursework towards a Bachelor of Business Administration degree," in a "Bachelor's Degree program" that ordinarily takes "Four to six years." Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.”
p. 2
“The Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of the criterion.”
p. 5
“The Petitioner has not met the burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of the regulatory criterion.”
p. 7
“The Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of the regulatory criterion.”
p. 5
“The Petitioner has not credibly established at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation she seeks.”
p. 5
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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed financial management. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?