agricultural and food 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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Expert letters support her qualifications
Evidence type: letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's research has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Employment as science teacher will enable research
Evidence type: employment letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation detailing how she plans to carry out her proposed research activities.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well positioned due to advanced degrees and publications
Evidence type: degrees, publications, citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“master's degrees and a record of publications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Citation record demonstrates influence
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders her well positioned.”
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 letters of support insufficient to establish that expert letters support her qualifications. 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?