Electrical Energy / Electronic…
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 endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters, publications, presentations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we agree with SCOPS's determination that the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, publications, citations, funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we conclude that the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: none
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 letters of recommendation, publications, citations, funding insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor. 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?