digital marketing

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-03-05·DISMISSED·IN RE: 37098482

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to economic impact and industry advancement

Evidence type: business plan, letters of intent, articles

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

the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, and the Petitioner's claims in her statement and business plan coupled with articles regarding the digital marketing industry are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic, societal, and security benefits to the United States.

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 business plan, letters of intent, articles insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to economic impact and industry advancement. 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