aerospace engineering and robotics
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: research has national importance due to applications in manufacturing and defense
Evidence type: informational materials about automation and AI
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, 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: well positioned due to education and publications
Evidence type: curriculum vitae, degree, publications, citation metrics
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research funded by NASA and DARPA
Evidence type: personal statement and informational materials
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“neither the Petitioner's personal statement nor informational materials about NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense ... serves as sufficient corroborating evidence to support his claim.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the US
Evidence type: general documentation about benefits of research
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this documentation is insufficient to show that the national interest is better served by a waiver of the job offer and thus the labor certification requirement.”
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 curriculum vitae, degree, publications, citation metrics insufficient to establish that well positioned due to education and publications. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's general documentation about benefits of research insufficient to establish that waiver would benefit the US. 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?