interior design
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
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner claimed her endeavor has national importance because it provides innovative solutions and materials.
Evidence type: personal statements, expert opinion letters, articles and reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not corroborate the Petitioner's claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner claimed her business would have substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the projected hiring of eight employees in five years does not demonstrate 'substantial positive economic effects for the nation' as contemplated in Dhanasar.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 personal statements, expert opinion letters, articles and reports insufficient to establish that the Petitioner claimed her endeavor has national importance because it provides innovative solutions and materials.. 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?