applied and computational mathematics
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: proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and critical technologies
Evidence type: policy references, personal statement
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research or provided supporting evidence to allow us to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on climate models, cancer research, energy, aerospace, etc.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, personal statement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner provided insufficient detail and documentation to substantiate that his proposed endeavor would have this wide-ranging impact on U.S. society.”
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 policy references, personal statement insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and critical technologies. 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?