optical science engineering
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 endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: articles, reports, recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed research”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: plan for future activities includes continuing employment and research on evenings and weekends
Evidence type: personal statement, collaboration with professors
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is therefore not sufficient to show that the Petitioner has maintained or will maintain the previous progress he achieved towards his proposed research while simultaneously working a full-time.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities
Evidence type: citations, recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently establish interest from relevant entities or individuals”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on education, publications, citations, and letters
Evidence type: education, publications, citations, letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
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 personal statement, collaboration with professors insufficient to establish that plan for future activities includes continuing employment and research on evenings and weekends. 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?