computer science and software…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: independent articles, reports from FDA and WHO
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner has established the broader implications of his proposed endeavor, and thereby shown that endeavor to have national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: supervisor letter, citation data, Google Scholar printouts
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“His success in this work, as shown by citations to his published work and endorsed by his immediate supervisor, indicates that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS must again review the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the context of the third Dhanasar prong, taking the above conclusions under consideration.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open 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 discussed computer science and software…. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- 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?