electrical engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its broader implications in aerospace, defense, and high-energy industries.
Evidence type: Forbes article, letters from researchers, publications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“For the above reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his education, research, and collaborations.
Evidence type: academic degrees, letters of recommendation, patent application, publications
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“For the above reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The Petitioner did not adequately address the third prong in the initial decision.
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“SCOPS offered only limited discussion of the third Dhanasar prong, stating several conclusions without adequately explaining how the record supports those conclusions.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 discussed electrical engineering. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- 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?