artificial intelligence
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: plan for future activities
Evidence type: personal statement and plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not established that his plan renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: papers are highly cited
Evidence type: citation data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not contain sufficient probative and corroborating evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that the papers should be considered highly cited.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: peer review shows record of success
Evidence type: peer review evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not shown how the quantity or quality of his participation in the widespread peer review process to date represents a record of success in similar endeavors”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: recommendation letters show he is well-positioned
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not corroborate his claim that the Petitioner enjoys 'an irreplaceable presence in the research sphere' based on the field's interest in this particular work.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: NSF funding shows success
Evidence type: NSF funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence shows NSF's interest in research projects in which the Petitioner was a participant but does not contain sufficient information pertaining to these grants or his individual contributions.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: session chair role shows interest
Evidence type: session chair evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that this role demonstrates interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or is indicative of a record of success in advancing his endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citations demonstrate influence
Evidence type: citations from other papers
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the nature of the citations does not sufficiently demonstrate that there has been significant positive discourse surrounding his research work or show that his research is considered influential in the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: STEM advanced degree and critical technology
Evidence type: policy manual guidance
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has a Ph.D. in a STEM field. Further, for the reasons discussed above, the record does not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 8Open 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 personal statement and plan insufficient to establish that plan for future activities. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's policy manual guidance insufficient to establish that sTEM advanced degree and critical technology. 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?