applied mathematics
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: shortage of STEM workers demonstrates national importance
Evidence type: expert letter mentioning shortage
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“a shortage of qualified professionals is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: expert endorsements corroborate national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letters from four experts
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not provide sufficient information or evidence about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its impact rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to broad implications for the United States
Evidence type: articles and reports on heart disease and healthcare costs
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the articles, reports, and data do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor ... or do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: work in STEM field is critical to technological leadership
Evidence type: National Science and Technology Council's list of critical and emerging technologies
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 expert letter mentioning shortage insufficient to establish that shortage of STEM workers demonstrates national importance. 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?