cybersecurity and crisis management
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“The employment letters submitted do not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's employment was related to the occupation outlined in proposed endeavor.”
p. 3
“Based upon the submitted evidence, we concur with SCOPS that the Petitioner has met this criterion.”
p. 2
“the Petitioner has not shown that ACM, ISACA, Intituto Joule, and Microsoft Alumni Network are professional associations within the meaning of the regulations”
p. 4
“the Petitioner does not explain how these certificates amount to certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
p. 3
“the Petitioner has not presented sufficient documentation showing that her earnings are indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in her field.”
p. 4
What 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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed cybersecurity and crisis management. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?