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 national importance.
Evidence type: research in critical and emerging technology, publication record, support letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“We therefore withdraw SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: publication record, citation history, letters of interest, previous funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“we conclude that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentation to substantiate that she more likely than not holds a Ph.D. from a Chinese university that is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate degree”
p. 2
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 publication record, citation history, letters of interest, previous funding insufficient to establish that petitioner is well-positioned to advance her 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?