mechanical engineering (HVAC systems…
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
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner's previous research demonstrates broad impact.
Evidence type: publications, conference presentations, citations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the Petitioner's previous research may help to understand his proposed endeavor, such previous work mainly relates to whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed research projects will have broader implications and impact the field.
Evidence type: research project descriptions, recommendation letters, citations
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner summarized three research projects, but he has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to extend beyond his potential employer and impact the field of mechanical HV AC engineering or other fields and industries.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it addresses energy efficiency and aligns with national initiatives.
Evidence type: articles and reports on energy use, national initiatives
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 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 national importance. 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 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's publications, conference presentations, citations insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's previous research demonstrates broad impact.. 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?