EB-2 NIWLife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided May 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY202021_01B5203
Merit and national importanceMetWell positionedNot metBalance favors a waiverNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A biochemist and molecular biologist sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the second prong and dismissed because she failed to demonstrate being well-positioned to advance her research endeavor. Education, citations, and peer review alone were insufficient without evidence of sustained funding or primary role in grant awards.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Merit and national importance · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO agreed on appeal.
What was missing
- Well positioned · Petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor; education alone insufficient; citation record and peer review did not establish sufficient interest from relevant parties.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Merit and national importance | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; AAO agreed on appeal. |
 Well positioned | Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate she was well-positioned to advance proposed endeavor; education alone insufficient; citation record and peer review did not establish sufficient interest from relevant parties. |
 Balance favors a waiver | Not reached / not discussed | Not analyzed because second prong failed; third prong analysis would serve no meaningful purpose. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.