medical research
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: NIH grant demonstrates interest and funding.
Evidence type: NIH grant award
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Because the 2024 NIH grant is dated after the Form I-140 filing date, it presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing that cannot-and does not-establish eligibility.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's prior research and publications demonstrate record of success.
Evidence type: publications and citation information
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record provides insufficient information regarding the Petitioner's record of success in related or similar efforts.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge demonstrate she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: PhD in Public Health, biostatistics
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“We consider the Petitioner's Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to her proposed endeavor to be an especially positive factor for establishing the second Dhanasar prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Letters of recommendation support well-positioned.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters of recommendation generally indicate that the Petitioner has performed a support role in much of her research projects and activities.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's personal statement provides a model or plan for future activities.
Evidence type: personal statements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“her personal statements provide few details regarding how she plans to accomplish her general objectives.”
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 NIH grant award insufficient to establish that nIH grant demonstrates interest and 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?