clinical tissue engineering…
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
FAILProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: His research has influenced the field.
Evidence type: Reference letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these letters do not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field in a manner demonstrating that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His work has garnered interest from colleagues and peers.
Evidence type: Reference letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the reference letters lack sufficient detail of interest in the Petitioner's work by their authors to establish this.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's education, reference letters, and significant publication and citation records demonstrate he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: CV, reference letters, citation records
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his professional career, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: He has a plan for future activities and progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: Personal statements, job search plans
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks evidence sufficient to establish the Petitioner's pursuit of such employment or of these companies' interest in employing him as a researcher scientist.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His citation record and publication record show he is well-positioned.
Evidence type: Google Scholar, Clarivate Analytics, OpenAlex analyses
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner does not offer the number of citations that this article received in 2016 or otherwise show that this article's average citation rate in 2016 is in the top 10 percent most cited articles in that year alone.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILWhat 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
- Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance) was not established here. What does my case need to show on this element?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's Reference letters insufficient to establish that his research has influenced the field.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits) was not established here. What does my case need to show on this element?