hardware reliability engineering
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: The proposed endeavor will benefit the U.S. economy and environment.
Evidence type: personal statement, industry reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his employment alone would have any projected economic impact or create jobs at a level indicative of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it is in a critical and emerging technology (CET) and will have broader implications.
Evidence type: industry reports, articles, personal statement, letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish how any research he conducts in hardware module reliability testing, and any resulting technological advances, would sufficiently extend beyond his employer such that his work would have broader implications for the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 personal statement, industry reports insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor will benefit the U.S. economy and environment.. 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?