cardiology 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 research has national importance
Evidence type: documentation indicating broader implications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the benefit of his proposed research offers broader implications for the field of cardiology, as the results are disseminated to others in these fields through medical journals and conferences.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned based on publications and citations
Evidence type: publication list, citation metrics, Google Scholar profiles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned based on letters of support
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve diagnostic approaches for cardiovascular diseases.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned based on funding and awards
Evidence type: grant letter, conference selection
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's evidence does not identify the specific research projects for which he has received funding or demonstrate the significance of his role.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Prong 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 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 →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's publication list, citation metrics, Google Scholar profiles insufficient to establish that well positioned based on publications and citations. 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?