aerospace engineering
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 substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: industry reports, personal statement, documentation of critical technology
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we agree with SCOPS that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: recommendation letters show influence in field
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner had not submitted evidence to demonstrate that his work had influenced the field”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: STEM PhD is especially positive factor
Evidence type: academic credentials
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, research experience, publications, and recommendation letters
Evidence type: recommendation letters, citation record, peer review activity
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation record shows record of success
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: interest from relevant parties
Evidence type: recommendation letters, citations, peer review
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to show that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 8Open source PDF
Prong 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's recommendation letters insufficient to establish that recommendation letters show influence in field. 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?