computer science

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-06-18·DISMISSED·IN RE: 38789158

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

PASS

Petitioner argued: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance

Evidence type: personal statement, publications, citation records, letters of support

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

FAIL

Petitioner argued: received funding from NSF

Evidence type: funding documentation

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the evidence indicates that the Petitioner was not the primary award recipient or principal investigator.

Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: current employment as cloud software developer provides relevant skills

Evidence type: employment description

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the record also lacks evidence of the connection between the Petitioner's day-to-day responsibilities as a cloud software developer and the research endeavor he proposes.

Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations

Evidence type: master's degree, publications, citation records, letters of support

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.

Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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 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 funding documentation insufficient to establish that received funding from NSF. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built