power engineering / electrical…
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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support, documentation of benefits of renewable energy integration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, doctoral degree, publications, patents, peer review, citations, letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: arguments about impracticality of labor certification, impact of research
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the aggregate, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that a national interest waiver outweighs the benefits inherent to the labor certification process”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
What 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 curriculum vitae, doctoral degree, publications, patents, peer review, citations, letters insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's arguments about impracticality of labor certification, impact of research insufficient to establish that waiver would benefit the United States. 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?