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
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner's publication and citation record demonstrates national importance.
Evidence type: publication list, citation counts, citation analysis
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the submitted statistics ... do clearly not show how often the Petitioner has been cited compared to others in his field”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's research has national importance due to its impact on public health and STEM fields.
Evidence type: support letters, publications, citation data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the record focuses on the need to address conditions like cleft lip, cancer, and COVID-19, rather than the specific work in which the Petitioner intends to engage to address them”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 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 national importance. 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 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's publication list, citation counts, citation analysis insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's publication and citation record demonstrates national importance.. 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?