occupational health and safety
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 proposed endeavor has national importance.
Evidence type: business plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the projections depicted in the Petitioner's business plan were not supported by corroborating evidence and a sufficient explanation of how those projections would be realized.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance.
Evidence type: academic and professional experience
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“much of the material the Petitioner relied on to establish the national importance of his endeavor highlighted his academic and professional experience, which relates generally not to the first prong of the Dhanasar adjudicative framework, but to the second”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 business plan insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has 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?