energy policy
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: research will lead to job creation and substantial economic benefits
Evidence type: generalized references
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to broader implications for U.S. energy security, economic competitiveness, and policy effectiveness
Evidence type: letters of support, thesis, dissertation, executive orders, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the letters of support generally express positive views of the Petitioner's work and its potential, they do not discuss how his specific research intentions will have broader implications for U.S. energy policy.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 generalized references insufficient to establish that research will lead to job creation and substantial economic benefits. 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?