biomedical engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statement
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS conducted an analysis of the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and concluded that the Petitioner had not established a waiver of the requirement of a job offer”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner met the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States
Evidence type: not specified
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS conducted an analysis of the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and concluded that the Petitioner had not established a waiver of the requirement of a job offer”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 biomedical 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?