biomedical engineering
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
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: letters of support
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner submitted probative letters of support from experts in the fields of biomedical engineering and neurology describing in meaningful detail the Petitioner's research work, her proposed endeavor, and its potential prospective impact on the fields.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, academic records, published work, peer review activity, citation record, recommendation letters, grant documentation
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“The record includes the following: the Petitioner's curriculum vitae; academic records; published and presented work; peer review activity; documentation of articles that cited to her research findings; recommendation letters from academic research colleagues; and documentation relating to a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: advanced STEM degree, published research, peer review, knowledge and skills, plan with progress, interest and support of academic members
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has established she offers contributions of such value that, on balance, she would benefit the United States even if other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, letters of support was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, curriculum vitae, academic records, published work, peer review activity, citation record, recommendation letters, grant documentation was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, advanced STEM degree, published research, peer review, knowledge and skills, plan with progress, interest and support of academic members was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?