computer science
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: publications and citations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not show strong publication or citation records”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“neither letter writer indicates any personal knowledge of the Petitioner's skills or his work beyond the stated citation history”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The record does not otherwise contain any evidence that the Petitioner or his own research project specifically received any funding”
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 publications and citations insufficient to establish that well-positioned to advance proposed 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?