civil and environmental 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: Peer review demonstrates standing
Evidence type: peer review history
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this certification only verifies the Petitioner's completion of two peer reviews and does not contain any other related information”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's publications and citations demonstrate influence
Evidence type: publication and citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has education, knowledge, and skills necessary to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: degrees and work experience
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record below does not contain evidence related to these claimed positions.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Letters of support demonstrate contributions
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not detail exactly, or provide examples of, how the Petitioner's specific work has satisfied the authors' above claims”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Funding sources demonstrate interest
Evidence type: funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not contain any additional detail as to the purpose for the funding, the initiators for the funding, the recipients, or how the funds were allocated.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 peer review history insufficient to establish that peer review demonstrates standing. 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?