trucking industry
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“did not include information regarding the association's specific membership requirements”
p. 4
“the evaluator's determination that he possessed the required five years of experience was based, in part, on experience the Petitioner accrued after the filing of the petition”
p. 3
“there is insufficient evidence to corroborate that he immediately began providing full-time services as a 'certified transportation professional' from that date”
p. 3
“this evidence alone does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's earnings are comparably higher than the earnings of others in his field”
p. 4
“he also provided his contractor operating agreement with that company, which was not executed until June 2021”
p. 3
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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed trucking industry. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?