supply chain management and logistics
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 Beneficiary's work experience and background establish national importance.
Evidence type: opinion letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the opinion letter primarily discusses the Beneficiary's background, the importance of the field of supply chain management in general, and describes the endeavor as being 'in line with' important national priorities.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it aligns with federal government priorities and has potential for broad impact.
Evidence type: reports from government agencies
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these claims relate to the importance of supply chain management in general, and we agree with SCOPS that in considering national importance, we focus on the 'specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
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 opinion letter insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's work experience and background establish national importance.. 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?