logistics and supply chain management
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on supply chain and logistics
Evidence type: testimonial letters, industry articles, company growth plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not - that the Beneficiary's particular 'strategic innovations and advanced analytics to ensure efficient, cost-effective, and reliable delivery of services [are] key to maintaining economic stability and competitive advantage' for the United States.”
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 testimonial letters, industry articles, company growth plan insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on supply chain and logistics. 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?