Electronic and Electrical Engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: Letters from recommenders support national importance of the endeavor.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“These letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's prior efforts, but do not discuss the broader impact of his proposed endeavor or analysis of his proposed future research projects.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it is in STEM and relates to image sensor technology, critical and emerging technologies, and CHIPS Act.
Evidence type: personal statement, letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives ... are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an Electronic and Electrical Engineer.”
page not extractedOpen 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 letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that letters from recommenders support national importance of the endeavor.. 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?