semiconductor hardware 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 Beneficiary's work will benefit the employer and its clients, and thus the industry.
Evidence type: letter from principal engineer
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record did not corroborate that the Beneficiary's work would broadly impact the field outside of his employer and its clients”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Beneficiary's work as a hardware engineer will have national importance due to its impact on the semiconductor industry.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor.”
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 letter from principal engineer insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's work will benefit the employer and its clients, and thus the industry.. 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?