medical research
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.
Evidence type: publications, citations, letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the record establishes the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: education, publications, citations, letters, personal statements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, as required by the second Dhanasar prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 education, publications, citations, letters, personal statements insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.. 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?