logistics and transportation
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The endeavor will have broader implications beyond clients.
Evidence type: personal statement, business plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its impact on the logistics industry and U.S. economy.
Evidence type: business plan, personal statement, industry reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that would rise to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 personal statement, business plan insufficient to establish that the endeavor will have broader implications beyond clients.. 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?