low-code development
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: his low-code development work influences and benefits multiple industries nationwide
Evidence type: support letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The support letters are of little probative value as they conflate the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: his low-code development work directly supports United States policy objectives in technology modernization
Evidence type: government documents and articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence specifically mentioning his proposed endeavor or discussing the government's interest in promoting the use of his work on developing low-code platforms”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: his proposed endeavor has secondary job creation effects
Evidence type: petitioner's assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner's low-code solutions will have an impact on the low-code industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: his endeavor addresses the national shortfall of IT talent
Evidence type: articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”
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 support letters insufficient to establish that his low-code development work influences and benefits multiple industries nationwide. 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?