communication and digital signal…
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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor
Evidence type: scholarly articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS discounted the relevance of the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles, stating "[t]he article may establish the overall importance of various topics in general, but the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work."”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: On balance, waiver is beneficial
Evidence type: STEM guidance
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS did not appear to take our STEM guidance into account.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 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 scholarly articles insufficient to establish that petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's STEM guidance insufficient to establish that on balance, waiver is beneficial. 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?