biomedical science
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: letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied with material, relevant, and probative evidence both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: future plans as postdoctoral researcher
Evidence type: letter from Ph.D. advisor
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed colorectal cancer research in the United States, the Petitioner has not shown that his plan for future activities renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, research, publications, citations, membership
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, citation record, membership letter, reference letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: AACR membership demonstrates prestige
Evidence type: membership letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not shown how being an AACR member demonstrates a record of success in his field, generation of interest of his endeavor among others in his field, or otherwise being well positioned to advance the endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: academic success evidenced by bachelor's and master's degrees
Evidence type: diplomas, transcripts
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. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research funding demonstrates success
Evidence type: article acknowledgement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner, rather than another coauthor, was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: publications in high-impact journals demonstrate significance
Evidence type: published articles, impact factor documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not indicate the significance of the Petitioner's role in the research which he coauthored with 15 others or that his work on the research influenced his field.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 letter from Ph.D. advisor insufficient to establish that future plans as postdoctoral researcher. 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?