materials science
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: research proposal, publications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“we agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relating to his prospective research is both substantially meritorious and nationally important.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Employment plans with specific employers
Evidence type: employment offer or communications
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of an employment offer from ... academic institutions, or any national labs.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Funding from Korean research foundations demonstrates ability to secure funding
Evidence type: funding documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing these funds”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on education, skills, and record of success
Evidence type: degree, publications, citations, recommendation letters, funding
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Citation record demonstrates impact
Evidence type: citation count
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 employment offer or communications insufficient to establish that employment plans with specific employers. 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?