optical science 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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed research endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letters, articles, advisory letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the referenced documents ... sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor relating to his prospective research in optical sciences has substantial merit and national importance”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed research endeavor
Evidence type: academic credentials, publications, recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record remains insufficient, by a preponderance, to establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to engage in future research”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open 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 academic credentials, publications, recommendation letters insufficient to establish that well-positioned to advance proposed research endeavor. 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?