chemistry
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner has received funding for research
Evidence type: funding records
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing fonds”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has a record of success in research as evidenced by publications and citations
Evidence type: publication and citation records
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the number of citations received by his published journals and articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's work has influenced the field
Evidence type: letters of support and advisory opinions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they generally lack specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or has influenced his field”
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 funding records insufficient to establish that petitioner has received funding for research. 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?