computational fluid dynamics
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: letters of support show his research is important
Evidence type: letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the letter provides a description of the Petitioner' research activities, it does not sufficiently establish how his work has affected the industries or whether his findings have been adopted, implemented, or otherwise influenced the industries, or shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: publications in prestigious venues show success
Evidence type: peer-reviewed journal articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research funding supports his position
Evidence type: acknowledgements of funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details to understand the funding sources at his disposal to carry out his research.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: advanced degrees, research experience, and professional experience demonstrate he is well positioned
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, diploma, credential evaluation, published work, citation metrics, letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record supports SCOPS' determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation record shows impact
Evidence type: Google Scholar profile, Clarivate Analytics data, citing articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders him well positioned.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: education alone demonstrates well-positioned
Evidence type: doctorate degree
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
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 letters of support insufficient to establish that letters of support show his research is important. 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?