artificial intelligence
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
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: statements, articles, grant acknowledgments
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks evidence supporting his claims about his proposed endeavor and the place it occupies in matters rising to a level of national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: education, publications, citation history, recommendation letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and probative evidence that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 8Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“the work experience letter contained in the record is not sufficient to evaluate whether the Petitioner has gained at least five years of progressively responsible post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty.”
p. 8
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 national importance. 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 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's statements, articles, grant acknowledgments insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's education, publications, citation history, recommendation letter 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?