software engineering
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: his contributions to Cloudflare go beyond his employment because Cloudflare is a leading network provider with millions of customers, including 35 percent of Fortune 500 companies, 20 FedRAMP data centers, and U.S. government agencies.
Evidence type: appeal brief
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner did not provide evidence of how the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his employer, Cloudflare, or how his particular proposed endeavor would impact the cyber industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSProng 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 appeal brief insufficient to establish that his contributions to Cloudflare go beyond his employment because Cloudflare is a leading network provider with millions of customers, including 35 percent of Fortune 500 companies, 20 FedRAMP data centers, and U.S. government agencies.. 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?