optical imaging engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities
Evidence type: citations to published articles and recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“beyond having been cited in published works, the articles do not describe how his future research endeavor has interest or support from others in his field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Interest from funding entities such as NSF and [foundation]
Evidence type: grant funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has led any research projects funded by government grants or private investments or that he was a principal investigator on any research.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor through employment at [company]
Evidence type: employment letter from Dr. H.D.
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter is not on [company] letterhead and contains no contact information such as telephone number or email address; we therefore consider the probative value of the letter to be significantly reduced.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's research will be disseminated through publications and conferences
Evidence type: employment letter from Dr. H.D.
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, nor does it support the Petitioner's claim that his research position involves publishing and presenting research to be disseminated in the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 citations to published articles and recommendation letters insufficient to establish that interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities. 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?