plant sciences
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, citation record, funding, employment offers, plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“On appeal, the Petitioner has established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: Waiver would be beneficial to the United States
Evidence type: support letters, STEM policy, critical and emerging technologies list
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“Considered together, these factors establish that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification in the Petitioner's case.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, support letters, STEM policy, critical and emerging technologies list was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, letters of recommendation, citation record, funding, employment offers, plan was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?