software engineering
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.
“the Director did not analyze how these documents, despite demonstrating that the Petitioner's company is registered in Brazil, qualify as a license to practice the profession as a software engineer or as an entrepreneur.”
p. 3
“the Director concluded that this criterion has been met without analyzing any evidence.”
p. 3
“the Petitioner submitted evidence for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) regarding how he has commanded a salary that demonstrates his exceptional ability. However, the Director did not analyze the evidence or make a determination under this criterion.”
p. 3
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 software engineering. 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?