electrical and computer engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Nebraska Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letters, advisory opinions, articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relating to his prospective research is both substantially meritorious and nationally important.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed research
Evidence type: academic credentials, publications, peer review, funding, collaboration letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: research plans, citation record, white paper
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 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 academic credentials, publications, peer review, funding, collaboration letters insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed research. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's research plans, citation record, white paper insufficient to establish that waiver would benefit the United States. 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?