logistics and transportation consulting
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its significance and national importance.
Evidence type: brief, personal statement, academic records, recommendation letters, potential client letters, business plan, industry reports and articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and clients to impact her field, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance.”
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 brief, personal statement, academic records, recommendation letters, potential client letters, business plan, industry reports and articles insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to its significance 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?