civil engineering
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 addressing climate change and environmental impact of construction
Evidence type: government reports, letters of support, citation record
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record supports SCOPS' determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor is of national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, citation history, research grant, letters of reference, peer review
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic records, citation record, letters of recommendation, research grant
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Prong 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 government reports, letters of support, citation record insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to addressing climate change and environmental impact of construction. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records, citation record, letters of recommendation, research grant insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, citation history, research grant, letters of reference, peer review. 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?