chemical engineering / hydrogen energy
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to potential impact on clean energy, economy, environment, national security
Evidence type: letters from employer and colleagues, articles, reports, government policies
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of his endeavor having a broader impact to his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor aligns with national policies and initiatives
Evidence type: articles, reports, U.S. government policies
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives and policies.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 letters from employer and colleagues, articles, reports, government policies insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to potential impact on clean energy, economy, environment, national security. 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?