industrial 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
FAILPetitioner argued: NSF funding demonstrates national importance
Evidence type: funding evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it does not necessarily follow that every NSF-funded project has 'national importance' as defined in Dhanasar”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: his work would advance critical and emerging technologies
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, conference presentations, publications
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the benefits of his on-the-job research would have implications beyond his employer and its customers.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 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 national importance. 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 1 (substantial merit & national importance), USCIS found the petitioner's funding evidence insufficient to establish that nSF funding demonstrates national importance. 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?