cross-border tax compliance and foreign…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: Her work facilitates large-scale foreign investments into the U.S. economy and has national importance.
Evidence type: self-declaration, recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor's impact would extend beyond her firm or the firm's clients to impact the field more broadly.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Her work aligns with federal economic initiatives and yields substantial nationwide economic benefits.
Evidence type: self-declaration, industry reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.”
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 self-declaration, recommendation letters insufficient to establish that her work facilitates large-scale foreign investments into the U.S. economy and has 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?