masonry and stone restoration
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: proposed work has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: business plan and statements
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 'advanced degree' and that his proposed work has 'substantial merit' and 'national importance.'”
Decision PDF, p. 1Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the venture
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS concluded, however, that he did not demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance the venture”
Decision PDF, p. 1Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the country
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“or that, on balance, a waiver of the U.S. worker protections would benefit the country.”
Decision PDF, p. 1Open source PDF
Other findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“SCOPS found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 'advanced degree'”
p. 1
What 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's not specified insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance the venture. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's not specified insufficient to establish that waiver would benefit the country. 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?