aviation maintenance and technology
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance because it involves technological innovation in aviation and positive economic impact.
Evidence type: business plan, statistics, job creation estimates
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“Upon consideration, we conclude that the widespread adoption of improved aircraft engines and aviation fuels could have implications and impacts sufficient to meet Dhanasar's first-prong requirements of substantial merit and national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his experience and credentials.
Evidence type: certificates, letters, business plan, financial projections
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar national interest test.”
Decision PDF, p. 9Open source PDF
Prong 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's certificates, letters, business plan, financial projections insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his experience and credentials.. 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?