plant sciences
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
PASSProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner's research is groundbreaking and a cornerstone
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not shown that the level of interest in his specific research is sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Education and funding position him well
Evidence type: degrees and funding evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Citations indicate impact
Evidence type: citing articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Invitation to luncheon shows recognition
Evidence type: invitation email
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated ... that an invitation to attend a luncheon for students and individuals in the early stages of their career shows a record of success in his field”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's research is vital for developing resistant varieties
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Peer review activity demonstrates recognition
Evidence type: peer review documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this single instance of participation in the widespread peer review process renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's work supports farmers and food security
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not elaborate specifically on how the Petitioner's specific findings have had such an effect.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's citation record places him in top 10%
Evidence type: citation metrics
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of agricultural sciences does not sufficiently establish the level of his success or impact in the field of plant sciences.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's work has made substantial breakthroughs in agriculture
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the agricultural industry.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: Urgent national interest due to climate change and food security
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“did not offer specific examples of how his contributions have affected these initiatives.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner is a trailblazer in developing climate-resilient crops
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The record, however, does not include supporting evidence to corroborate Dr. A-R-'s claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open 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 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 letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that petitioner's research is groundbreaking and a cornerstone. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's letters of recommendation insufficient to establish that urgent national interest due to climate change and food security. 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?