digital marketing
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: The endeavor has national importance due to economic impact and alignment with national objectives.
Evidence type: industry reports, business plan, economic projections
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the projections rely on consistent economic conditions, which undermines the probative value of their evidentiary weight.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The endeavor has national importance based on expert opinions.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter, advisory evaluation
Petitioner argued: The endeavor has national importance due to its alignment with STEM initiatives.
Evidence type: petitioner's assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that his work would lead to advancements in STEM innovation or STEM applications at a level commensurate with national importance.”
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 industry reports, business plan, economic projections insufficient to establish that the endeavor has national importance due to economic impact and alignment with national objectives.. 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?