biomedical engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to STEM field and critical technology
Evidence type: government memorandum, letters, articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner has demonstrated that his specific endeavor of improving the understanding of brain cognitive processes through ML and Al models is within a critical and emerging technology field that would be relevant to the U.S. government's technology leadership interests and would have national implications within the field.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: peer review activities demonstrate recognition
Evidence type: peer review feedback forms
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not explain the significance of his review experience or demonstrate his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: education and research experience demonstrate well-positioned
Evidence type: degree, research work
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Although the Petitioner asserts that his advanced degree in a STEM field is an 'especially positive factor,' it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: funding and interest from others
Evidence type: research grants, letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that he himself previously received funding for his research or has secured funding to continue pursuing his specific proposed endeavor in the future.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: publications and citations demonstrate record of success
Evidence type: publications, citation data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his two published articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: recommendation letters demonstrate significance of work
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the authors of these letters do not provide sufficient detail explaining the significance of the Petitioner's past research, or how it has affected the field or industry to demonstrate a history of accomplishment and success and progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 peer review feedback forms insufficient to establish that peer review activities demonstrate recognition. 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?