industrial production 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: The endeavor has national importance because it addresses critical challenges in U.S. energy and industrial production sectors, aligns with national goals, and will result in significant job creation.
Evidence type: business plan, expert opinion letter, articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the wider impact of his particular endeavor beyond [his business] and its clients, or that the endeavor would have broader implications to the field sufficient to demonstrate its national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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, expert opinion letter, articles insufficient to establish that the endeavor has national importance because it addresses critical challenges in U.S. energy and industrial production sectors, aligns with national goals, and will result in significant job creation.. 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?