molecular 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
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: personal statement, peer-reviewed articles, advisory opinions, industry reports, letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, 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: citation record demonstrates impact
Evidence type: citation data
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the number of self-citations or those made by co-authors, which limits the ability to assess the objectivity and the breadth of the impact.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: funding supports well-positioned
Evidence type: funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not shown that he was the primary award recipient or principal investigator.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: advanced degree, publications, citations, patents, funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not shown that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as contemplated by Dhanasar.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 data 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?