industrial engineering
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner made significant contributions to government-funded projects.
Evidence type: letters from professors, grant proposal submission
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner directed the projects. The record does not show the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner asserted that her education, skills, knowledge, record of success, and research plan strongly support her ability to advance her proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: recommendation letters, citation record, grant participation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The evidence in the record does not support the Petitioner's assertions that her education, skills, knowledge, record of success, and research plan, including progress toward advancing and interest in her research, 'strongly support her ability to advance her proposed endeavor.'”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner has distinguished herself from her peers through her preeminent contributions.
Evidence type: letter from founder and CEO of data solutions company
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he also does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field. He does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve the field of reliability and industrial engineering.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's research has influenced the field of industrial engineering.
Evidence type: letter of support from associate professor
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter does not discuss how the Petitioner's research has influenced the field of endeavor to demonstrate the significance of her work and show that her work constitutes a record of success.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's real-world applications of AI have advanced the global reliability community and gained wide international recognition.
Evidence type: letter from professor and advisor
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the professor does not offer specific examples indicating the Petitioner's work has affected the field or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's citation record demonstrates impact and significance of her work.
Evidence type: citatory evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she has not shown that a notable number of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on her work, resulting in a significant impact within the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 from professors, grant proposal submission insufficient to establish that the Petitioner made significant contributions to government-funded projects.. 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?