information technology
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner's publication record and citation history reflect his influence on the field and show he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: publications and citation record
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“most of the Petitioner's publication history does not appear to relate to the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's personal statement provides a model or plan for future activities.
Evidence type: personal statement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it does not provide a model or plan for conducting and funding this proposed research.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's education and experience set him apart from others in the field.
Evidence type: educational credentials and work experience
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not established how, based on this background, he has the knowledge or skills necessary to publish and present research related to the early detection of cancer.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's employment letter confirms he is currently carrying out the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: employment letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish how this employment supports the Petitioner's ability to conduct, publish, and present research.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The grant letter evidences interest in the Petitioner's work.
Evidence type: grant letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The letter awarding the grant for this study does not discuss the Petitioner at all and is addressed to 'whom it may concern.'”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 publications and citation record insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's publication record and citation history reflect his influence on the field and show he 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?