software engineering
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 field of software engineering is of national importance.
Evidence type: expert opinion
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evaluation's focus on the importance and need for software engineers does not demonstrate that the instant specific endeavor would have a prospective impact in the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it ensures the reliability of a platform used by many U.S. organizations.
Evidence type: letters from executives
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the content of these letters mainly relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”
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 expert opinion insufficient to establish that the field of software engineering is of 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?