business consulting and financial…
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 endeavor will have substantial positive economic effect.
Evidence type: business plan and RIMS II analysis
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the provided figures, and by extension the RIMS II analysis figures] are not corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate it is more likely than not that lwill have a substantial positive economic effect within the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The endeavor aligns with national priorities and has broader implications.
Evidence type: letter of interest
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the author does not provide context or details for his assertion that the Petitioner's work has the potential to significantly impact the broader industry.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 and RIMS II analysis insufficient to establish that the endeavor will have substantial positive economic effect.. 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?