occupational health and safety
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Nebraska Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: professional plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“provided no details beyond general descriptions of what the occupation entails”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance.
Evidence type: advisory evaluation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“did not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and explain its national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance.
Evidence type: background materials
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these materials do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 professional plan insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and 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?