computer science
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 substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statement, peer-reviewed articles, advisory opinions, industry reports, letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, letters, funding
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, transcripts, publications, citation metrics, letters, funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not established she meets Dhanasar 's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 curriculum vitae, transcripts, publications, citation metrics, letters, funding evidence insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, letters, funding. 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?