medical sciences
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: research description, statistics, policy manual
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: citation record demonstrates impact
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by her published articles reflect a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters in the record do not suffice to establish how the Petitioner's research has influenced the field”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: funding demonstrates ability to pursue research
Evidence type: funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not established she was a named grant recipient”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: peer review activities demonstrate record of success
Evidence type: peer review
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not offered documentation demonstrating that her peer review experience rises to the level of rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed research”
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 citation record insufficient to establish that citation record demonstrates impact. 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?