petroleum 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: research has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: research in petroleum engineering focusing on carbon dioxide storage security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“Because the Petitioner's research has applications in advancing energy storage, which is an area identified by the National Science and Technology Council as a critical and emerging technology, we agree with SCOPS that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that his intended research is supported through the allocation of funding by a U.S. based education, government or private institution.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters from government agencies
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record [did not contain] letters from interested U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities ... providing relevant information about how well positioned [the Petitioner] is to advance the endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: job offers or employer interest
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of interest to hire him from the ... or any other U.S. educational institution.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of reference
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters failed to provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's research influenced the field or industry beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“there was insufficient independent evidence to show that his research findings have been "frequently cited by independent researchers or that they otherwise constitute a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to the endeavor"”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 funding evidence insufficient to establish that well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor. 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?