research science
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner submitted evidence including personal statements, an independent advisory opinion letter, and industry articles to support national importance.
Evidence type: personal statements, advisory opinion letter, industry articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“the record reflects the Petitioner submitted documentation including personal statements describing his endeavor, an independent advisory opinion letter, and industry articles, in support of his claim that he satisfied this prong. None of this evidence was addressed in the decision.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner submitted publications, citation record, and personal statements to show he is well positioned.
Evidence type: publications, citation record, personal statements
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“the decision lacks specific analysis of the Petitioner's evidence such as his publications, citation record, and personal statements describing his plans to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner submitted documentary evidence to show the waiver would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: documentary evidence
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“the decision concludes, without a specific discussion of documents in the record, that the Petitioner "ha[ s] not submitted documentary evidence" demonstrating that he met this prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
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 discussed research science. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?