mechanical engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner has interest from relevant entities through funding
Evidence type: funding evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner had any role in applying for and receiving this funding.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has a plan for future activities and progress
Evidence type: personal statement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate these claims. The Petitioner did not provide evidence, other than his own statement, related to this graduate student research position specifically, or to his Ph.D. program in general.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's record of success is demonstrated by citation record
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude that the evidence appears to demonstrate that the published work that the Petitioner has co-authored has been cited frequently by researchers at a rate that is high relative to others in the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge are positive factors
Evidence type: education credentials
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude that the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge are positive factors in whether he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 funding evidence insufficient to establish that petitioner has interest from relevant entities through funding. 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?