international development
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on U.S. social welfare and addressing root causes of migration
Evidence type: project proposal, USAID documents, White House documents
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will likely impact the field of international development or that its potential prospective impact has national implications within the field”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has potential to employ U.S. workers
Evidence type: project proposal indicating hiring 16 employees
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not shown that the possible creation of 16 positions and any other potential economic effects associated with her proposed endeavor constitute 'substantial positive economic effects'”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 project proposal, USAID documents, White House documents insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on U.S. social welfare and addressing root causes of migration. 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?