Computer and Information Sciences
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 research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support, documentation of technological benefits
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: peer review activity demonstrates success
Evidence type: peer review documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“He has not demonstrated, however, that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation record demonstrates impact
Evidence type: Google Scholar profile, Clarivate data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, citation record, publications, peer review
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: future plan as assistant professor
Evidence type: statement of intent
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“did not provide documentation from any such employer either showing their communications or identifying the specific research projects he intends to pursue”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research has been published in top outlets
Evidence type: publication list
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 documentation insufficient to establish that peer review activity demonstrates success. 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?