data science
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters, general information
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic records, recommendation letters, published paper, citation record
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: waiver would be beneficial to the United States
Evidence type: advanced degree, published research, entrepreneurial background
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude that the waiver of the labor certification requirement for the Petitioner would, on balance, be beneficial to the United States”
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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, letters, general information was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, advanced degree, published research, entrepreneurial background was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, curriculum vitae, academic records, recommendation letters, published paper, citation record was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?