civil engineering
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: support letters, research topics
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver because he did not establish either the second or third Dhanasar prongs nor the national importance element of the first Dhanasar prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: citation record, letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his citation record is 'exceptional compared to others in the field' and he did not demonstrate that his research has 'influenced medical practice.'”
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 discussed civil engineering. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?