computer science
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: research proposal, publications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relating to his prospective research is both substantially meritorious and nationally important.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, experience, publications, citations, funding
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed articles, citation record, letters of recommendation, funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to this issue.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open 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 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 curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed articles, citation record, letters of recommendation, funding evidence insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, experience, publications, citations, funding. 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?