information technology (IT) project…
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: her work directly supports federal priorities
Evidence type: articles and reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these documents provide only general background information on the aforementioned subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: the Petitioner will provide positive benefits for the nation
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient basis for their claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: her work in IT project management exemplifies national importance through its 'transformative impact on regional planning, transportation infrastructure, environmental conservation, public service efficiency, and disaster preparedness.'
Evidence type: emails and project documents
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they did not speak to the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor or illustrate how her endeavor would have prospectively broader impacts.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: she developed ADA-compliant portals central to housing and transportation outreach for the [commission]
Evidence type: own statements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she mainly relies on her own statements without sufficient corroborating evidence to support her assertions.”
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 articles and reports insufficient to establish that her work directly supports federal priorities. 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?