cybersecurity and intellectual property

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2026-01-07·DISMISSED·IN RE: 40797600

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: disseminating knowledge through trainings and publications will have broader impact

Evidence type: petitioner's statements

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

the Petitioner's intent to transfer his professional knowledge to others does not demonstrate an impact on the cybersecurity industry more broadly or rise to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.

Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: endeavor aligns with national initiatives

Evidence type: U.S. government policies and industry reports

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular.

Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance

Evidence type: business plan, industry articles, government initiatives, recommendation letters, independent opinion letters

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the evidence lacked probative value.

Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: business will create jobs and have substantial positive economic effects

Evidence type: business plan projections

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.

Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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 petitioner's statements insufficient to establish that disseminating knowledge through trainings and publications will have broader impact. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built