pharmaceutical research
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statement, articles from NIH and CDC
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: education, letters, citation record, conference presentations, email communications
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“On appeal, the Petitioner has established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: on balance, waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: track record of successful research, significance of proposed work
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner therefore satisfies the third prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, track record of successful research, significance of proposed work was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, education, letters, citation record, conference presentations, email communications was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, personal statement, articles from NIH and CDC was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?