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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner has a plan to work as an assistant professor at a university.
Evidence type: no evidence of job offer or funding
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of an employer offer from the University nor evidence of funding for or availability of such a position.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Evidence type: funding documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence indicates that the Petitioner was not the primary award recipient or principal investigator.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's research has been referenced and utilized by researchers around the world.
Evidence type: recommendation letters, advisory opinions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they generally lack specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner has a record of success as evidenced by citations and publications.
Evidence type: citation record, publications
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published journals and articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
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 no evidence of job offer or funding insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has a plan to work as an assistant professor at a university.. 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?