software development
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with federal cybersecurity policies and economic impact
Evidence type: professional plan, supplement, statements about cost of data breaches
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer or clients and their information technology systems' users to impact the field of technology, the field of software development, the cybersecurity sector, or U.S. industry's cloud infrastructure more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 professional plan, supplement, statements about cost of data breaches insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with federal cybersecurity policies and economic impact. 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?