civil and environmental 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
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: personal statements, support letters, evidence regarding infrastructure importance
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but not its national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS concluded in its decision that the record is insufficient.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS did not sufficiently discuss or analyze the evidence in the record as it relates to these factors.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
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 discussed civil and environmental engineering. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?