quantitative finance
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: Recommendation letter attests to rare talent and lasting impact.
Evidence type: recommendation letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these broad, general assertions are made without sufficient support that would help establish the potential impact of the Petitioner's endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its impact on financial stability.
Evidence type: publications and reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this evidence relates only to the financial services industry and risk management in general and not to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Opinion letters corroborate national importance.
Evidence type: opinion letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not provide a sufficient, specific explanation of the endeavor's national importance.”
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 recommendation letter insufficient to establish that recommendation letter attests to rare talent and lasting impact.. 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?