computer network architecture
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it aligns with U.S. government priorities
Evidence type: government reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While they attest to the importance of these topics, these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letters show how her software innovations benefitted major U.S. telecommunications providers, impacting millions of end users
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters largely praise the Petitioner's past work but do not specifically address her proposed endeavor.”
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 government reports insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance because it aligns with U.S. government priorities. 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?