biotechnology and cancer therapeutics
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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support, employer statement, documentation of dissemination
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner's assertions are supported by material, relevant, and probative evidence demonstrating both the substantial merit and national importance of their proposed research.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic records, publications, reference letters, citation evidence, funding
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner's experience and expertise as a researcher at the intersection of biotechnology, oncology, and cancer therapeutics, published articles, citation evidence, progress in their field, and professional progression at reputed research institutions position them well to advance their proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive job offer requirement
Evidence type: education, experience, expertise, potential medical benefits, past successes
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“So, we conclude that the Petitioner offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even if other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
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, education, experience, expertise, potential medical benefits, past successes 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 support, employer statement, documentation of dissemination was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, curriculum vitae, academic records, publications, reference letters, citation evidence, funding 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?