biomedical field
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Peer review activity demonstrates recognition as an expert.
Evidence type: peer review activity
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“neither the author nor the Petitioner submits the requirements to become a reviewer to support these statements and the Petitioner's evidence does not corroborate such claimed expertise.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has a plan to continue research at his current institution.
Evidence type: personal statement and supervisor letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not provided documentary evidence establishing his ability to continue this employment or otherwise provide an explanation of how he intends to continue this research without his employment”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has a record of success and is well positioned to advance his endeavor based on his publications and citations.
Evidence type: peer-reviewed publications and citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the articles do not demonstrate how his work is being used by others in the field to establish a record of success or progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Recommendation letters demonstrate his expertise and impact.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Each author briefly described the Petitioner's research but did not provide sufficient detail explaining the significance of the Petitioner's past research or work.”
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 activity insufficient to establish that peer review activity demonstrates recognition as an expert.. 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?