transportation 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: Funding from AASHTO and FHWA demonstrates national importance.
Evidence type: funding evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“As the record does not establish this funding is for his proposed endeavor, this evidence does not relate to the national importance of his proposed endeavor but relates to his prior experience.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects by reducing crash costs.
Evidence type: article on crash costs
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“evidence of the cost of traffic crashes is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact or substantially alleviate these costs.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor advances critical and emerging technologies (CETs) such as AI.
Evidence type: policy manual reference
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance these CETs to result in national or global implications within a particular field.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it addresses traffic crashes and improves safety.
Evidence type: industry reports and articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the report in the record supports his statement on the number of traffic crashes in 2023, it does not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Letters of recommendation show the impact of his work.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the author's focus is on the impact of the Petitioner's prior work; not the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 funding evidence insufficient to establish that funding from AASHTO and FHWA demonstrates national importance.. 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?