Telecommunications
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: Proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: Petitioner's statement, offer letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude it is of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on publications, citations, peer review, funding, and impact
Evidence type: publications, citation data, peer review records, funding documentation, support letters, offer letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we conclude that she has not established that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 publications, citation data, peer review records, funding documentation, support letters, offer letter insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on publications, citations, peer review, funding, and impact. 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?