chemical 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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner has a plan for future activities
Evidence type: job search strategies
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's publications are prestigious and well-cited
Evidence type: publication record and citation counts
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized in the renewable energy industry”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has received research funding
Evidence type: research paper acknowledgements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 job search strategies insufficient to establish that petitioner has a plan for future activities. 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?