biomedical science
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: Funding received for research demonstrates the value of her work for public health.
Evidence type: funding documentation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not elaborate on how that funding establishes that the specific, prospective endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have broader implications”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it aims to improve cancer prevention and treatment.
Evidence type: personal statements, publications, letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor 'will impact the field more broadly, as contemplated by Dhanasar'”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Biotechnology is a critical and emerging technology, so the endeavor is nationally important.
Evidence type: CET list
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the CET list also does not address the Petitioner, her proposed endeavor, and how the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have national importance.”
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 funding documentation insufficient to establish that funding received for research demonstrates the value of her work for public health.. 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?