Mechanical 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 substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: documentation indicating broader implications for the field
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of her proposed research has broader implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: research funding demonstrates success
Evidence type: acknowledgements in coauthored paper
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than Dr. J-W-) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: future plans as post-doc demonstrate positioning
Evidence type: statement of intent to pursue post-doc position
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States after graduation from her current Ph.D. program, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letters of support demonstrate success
Evidence type: letters from Dr. J-W-, Dr. V-M-, Dr. K-L-, Dr. M-H-
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the Petitioner's computer simulations help improve understanding of Alzheimer's disease, she has not demonstrated the extent to which her specific findings are being utilized to improve detection efforts or interventional treatment.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: peer review activity demonstrates success
Evidence type: email from journal confirming review
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her two instances participation in the widespread peer review process and reviews of this kind represent a record of success in her field or that they are otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, letters, funding, peer review
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, master's degree, published and presented work, peer review service, citation metrics, letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record supports the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation count demonstrates impact
Evidence type: Google Scholar profile, citation data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's comparison of her citation number in her field with information regarding citation in the broader fields of molecular biology and genetics does not sufficiently demonstrate her record of research success or otherwise render her well positioned.”
page not extractedOpen 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 acknowledgements in coauthored paper insufficient to establish that research funding 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?