logistics and supply chain management
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will improve the logistics industry and have broader implications.
Evidence type: business plan, expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, industry articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed endeavor of operating a logistics consulting business would have national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
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 business plan, expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, industry articles insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it will improve the logistics industry and have broader implications.. 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?