petroleum engineering

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-05-20·DISMISSED·IN RE: 31094041

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: work will have national and global implications

Evidence type: recommendation letters

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

the content of these letters also relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.

Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to benefits to economy and environment

Evidence type: petitioner's statements, articles, reports

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.

Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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. 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 recommendation letters insufficient to establish that work will have national and global implications. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built