computing methodologies and data science
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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: detailed compelling letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“Based on the evidence submitted, including through detailed compelling letters supported by the record, the Petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor meets the standard for national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: doctoral degree, letters from researchers, letter from government official
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner 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 benefit the United States
Evidence type: preponderance of evidence
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“A preponderance of the evidence in this matter indicates that a waiver of the job-offer and labor-certification requirements would benefit the United States.”
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, detailed compelling letters 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, preponderance of evidence 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, doctoral degree, letters from researchers, letter from government official 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?