biomedical sciences
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
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it has broad implications and NIH funded his research
Evidence type: articles and recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While these articles discuss the prevalence and impact of autoimmune diseases in the United States, they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: support letters praise his past work and skills
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While S-R-, K-T-, and M-K- attest to the significance of the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and past work, their letters are more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong ... As S-R-, K-T- and M-K- do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, their letters are not probative of national importance.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it involves STEM and CETs
Evidence type: NSTC CETs List Update
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The record here does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 articles and recommendation letters insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance because it has broad implications and NIH funded his research. 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?