transportation and logistics

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-09-09·REMANDED·IN RE: 33401207

Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

PASS

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor

Evidence type: educational records, resume, personal statement, letters of recommendation, business plan, financial documents

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

We therefore withdraw the Director's determination on this issue and remand to the Director, in part, to consider the relevant evidence in the record and reassess whether the Petitioner satisfies prong two.

Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

Petitioner argued: On balance, waiver would be beneficial to the United States

Evidence type: business plan indicating current employment

USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED

We therefore withdraw the Director's determination on this issue and remand to the Director, in part, to analyze the relevant evidence of record related to the third prong and reassess whether this prong is satisfied.

Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 transportation and logistics. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.

Describe your situation →

Related decisions

Questions this raises for your lawyer

  • 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