cancer biology and disease etiology
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 research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support, documentation about cancer screening
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: patent demonstrates significance
Evidence type: Chinese patent
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the significance of this patent”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: peer review activity demonstrates success
Evidence type: manuscript review documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“She has not demonstrated ... that the level and frequency of her participation ... represents a record of success”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: funding from major sources
Evidence type: published articles acknowledging funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner ... was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, citation metrics, patent, peer review
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation impact in top percentiles
Evidence type: Google Scholar profiles, Clarivate Analytics data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield”
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 Chinese patent insufficient to establish that patent demonstrates significance. 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?