information technology (IT)

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-09-19·DISMISSED·IN RE: 33398637

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor will have significant impact on local and national economy

Evidence type: data about consultancy firms

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

the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to have a national impact on any of his claimed industries

Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: business will generate jobs and contribute to U.S. economy

Evidence type: business plan

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections

Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 data about consultancy firms insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor will have significant impact on local and national economy. 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