environmental consulting

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2024-08-13·DISMISSED·IN RE: 31417915

Underlying petition: DENIED · Nebraska Service Center

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

PASS

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

FAIL

Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor

Evidence type: business plan, lecture participation, scholarly article, language proficiency

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

the record does not support that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.

Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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. USCIS officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.

This decision turned on whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.

Describe your situation →
This decision turned on economic impact — see the other 700 decisions that discussed the same issue →This decision turned on well-positioned — see the other 271 decisions that discussed the same issue →

Related decisions

Questions this raises for your lawyer

  • On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's business plan, lecture participation, scholarly article, language proficiency insufficient to establish that petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built