chemical engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance based on societal health and welfare benefits
Evidence type: reference letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact would extend beyond her customers.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance based on potential innovations and economic effects
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The opinion letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in her field, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare for our nation for it to rise 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 reference letters insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance based on societal health and welfare 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?