industrial 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: endeavor will result in cost and energy savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved public health
Evidence type: industry reports, articles, NCBI publication
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in the United States, broadly impact an industry on a national or global level beyond a prospective employer or prospective customers, or otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising 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 industry reports, articles, NCBI publication insufficient to establish that endeavor will result in cost and energy savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved public health. 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?