pediatric medicine
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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner's publication and citation record demonstrates she is well positioned
Evidence type: publications and citations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's publication and citation record but determined that it did not reflect a record of success, or a sufficient level of interest from others in her field, to establish that she is well positioned.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Support letters from prestigious institutions demonstrate she is well positioned
Evidence type: support letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“there is little evidence to support the Petitioner's and her colleagues' assertions that her lone MPS II article co-authored in medical school led to MPS II being added to the DHHS RUSP list.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: DHHS revision of RUSP list reflects government interest in her work
Evidence type: government letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“there is little evidence to support that the Petitioner's research on MPS II played a central role in the revision of the RUSP list”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's advanced degrees and work in critical technologies make her well positioned
Evidence type: degrees
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she did not demonstrate that she has a Ph.D. in a specific critical and emerging technology.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner's research is urgent to U.S. competitiveness and public health
Evidence type: general assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this documentation is insufficient to show that the national interest is better served by a waiver of the job offer and thus the labor certification requirement.”
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 publications and citations insufficient to establish that petitioner's publication and citation record demonstrates she is well positioned. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's general assertions insufficient to establish that petitioner's research is urgent to U.S. competitiveness and 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?