nanofabrication 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
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will improve semiconductor research and production in the U.S.
Evidence type: letters from experts, partnership agreements, methodology description
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has demonstrated the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS did not explain its reasoning. Without applying the relevant factors to the facts of the Petitioner's case, the decision states: 'Based on the evidence provided with the initial petition and RFE [requested for additional evidence] response[,] you have established that [you are] well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.'”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The waiver would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“we are unable to accurately weigh the venture's potential benefits, and his ability to carry the endeavor forward. We therefore decline to review SCOPS' balancing of a waiver's pros and cons.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 discussed nanofabrication engineering. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- 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?