biomedical engineering
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: letters of support, information about demand for livestock
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: letter from Dr. A-R- shows success
Evidence type: letter of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letter from Dr. D-J- shows success
Evidence type: letter of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not discuss the impact, if any, or the application of the Petitioner's contributions to the field of biomedical engineering.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: publications show record of success
Evidence type: Google Scholar profile
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that his work has been cited by others.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: provisional patent demonstrates success
Evidence type: patent application filing receipt
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the document does not appear to be a "provisional patent" but rather a confirmation number issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark's Office acknowledging their receipt of an application for a provisional patent.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: contributions to government-funded projects show success
Evidence type: letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, master's degree, Google Scholar profile, letters of support, job offer letter, project management certification
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: pursuing second master's degree shows well-positioned
Evidence type: academic record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“It is unclear how his efforts to get the second degree demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letter from Dr. V-P- shows success
Evidence type: letter of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry.”
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 letter of recommendation insufficient to establish that letter from Dr. A-R- shows success. 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?