biomedical and biological sciences…
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: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statement, research description
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has sufficiently shown the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, peer review, patents, funding, support letters
Evidence type: publications, citations, peer review, patents, funding, support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish the Petitioner met her burden to show she satisfies this prong”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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, citations, peer review, patents, funding, support letters insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, peer review, patents, funding, support letters. 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?