engineering and industrial services
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: Proposed endeavor has national importance due to work on school district capital improvement programs
Evidence type: cost proposal, organizational chart, assertions of economic impact
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence provided is insufficient to establish that the position of cost and project controls engineer working on public school capital improvement projects is of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“we withdraw SCOPS' determination and conclude the Beneficiary is eligible for EB-2 visa classification.”
p. 2
What 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 cost proposal, organizational chart, assertions of economic impact insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to work on school district capital improvement programs. 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?