information technology (IT) consultancy…
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: The Petitioner's methodology has national importance due to its potential impact on pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence type: business plan, employer letters, articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The record, however, contains insufficient evidence supporting the claimed importance of the Petitioner's methodology in his field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The business will have substantial economic benefits.
Evidence type: business plan projections
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the plan does not demonstrate the accuracy of its revenue projections.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The methodology is innovative and distinct.
Evidence type: business plan, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently differentiated his IT methodology from others used by pharmaceutical companies.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 business plan, employer letters, articles insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's methodology has national importance due to its potential impact on pharmaceutical industry.. 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?