supply chain management and logistics
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: endeavor will have broader impact on field
Evidence type: reference letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not established through independent evidence that his endeavor will impact the field of supply chain management more broadly.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to supply chain importance
Evidence type: industry reports and government fact sheets
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“None of the reports provided discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its impact.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: business will have substantial positive economic effects
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 reference letters insufficient to establish that endeavor will have broader impact on field. 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?