mechanical engineering
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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: research proposal, publications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner met Dhanasar's first prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: education and skills make her well positioned
Evidence type: PhD, publications
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“a PhD, and a record of publications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citations demonstrate record of success
Evidence type: citation statistics from Clarivate Analytics and OpenAlex
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner may not solely rely on CA to prove her contention.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: recommendation letters show impact
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it lacks sufficient specificity in demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has changed the course of other research efforts.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: grant from Department of Energy shows ability to secure funding
Evidence type: grant information
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to independently secure funding or lead the advancement of her proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 PhD, publications insufficient to establish that education and skills make her well positioned. 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?