electrical and computer 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
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with climate goals and economic benefits
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, industry reports, economic data
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the record does not support a determination of national or global implications within the electrical and computer engineering field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well-positioned due to citation record, post-doctoral position, and DOE funding
Evidence type: citation data, letter from university, publications with acknowledgements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the record related to the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities and his progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor does not support a finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.”
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 national importance. 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 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's letters of recommendation, industry reports, economic data insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with climate goals and economic benefits. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's citation data, letter from university, publications with acknowledgements insufficient to establish that well-positioned due to citation record, post-doctoral position, and DOE funding. 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?