No announcement yet.

Article: Matter Of Dhanasar - The USCIS Denial and How the AAO Crafted a New NIH Standard By Gerry Chapman


  • Article: Matter Of Dhanasar - The USCIS Denial and How the AAO Crafted a New NIW Standard By Gerry Chapman

    Matter Of Dhanasar - The USCIS Denial and How the AAO Crafted a New NIW Standard


    On December 27, 2016, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) issued a rare “precedent” decision in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dwec. 884 (AAO 2016). We served as counsel for Dr. Mookesh Dhanasar, the applicant, throughout most of his green card case and the entire appeal that resulted in the precedent decision. The AAO issues only a very limited number of such decisions, and in this case, it vacated the last precedent decision on National Interest Waiver (NIW) cases from 1998, Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215(Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998) (“NYSDOT”).

    The background to Matter of Dhanasar is straightforward. On May 24, 2014, USCIS denied Dr. Dhanasar’s application for a National Interest Waiver (NIW) of the normal Labor Certification Application requirement in EB-2 employment based green card cases. Because that category is so badly backlogged for citizens of India (almost 9 years) and of China (over 4 years), many Indian and Chinese nationals try to avoid the labor cert by filing an NIW application.

    Before it denied Dr. Dhanasar’s NIW application, USCIS issued a Request for Additional Evidence (RFE). Dr. Dhanasar promptly retained Chapman Law Firm to respond to the RFE. In our response, we submitted exhaustive evidence (support letters, articles, etc.) proving that Dr. Dhanasar is a highly accomplished engineer who has made exceptional accomplishments in his field, and who has had a major impact through his unique scientific developments in his field of hypersonic propulsion, computational fluid dynamics and nano/pico small satellite systems. Multiple support letters confirmed that his research and scientific development methods are outstanding and among the most cutting-edge in his field, and that, by providing a unique approach to small satellite propulsion, his work will result in a sustained national benefit to the security of the United States.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that Dr. Dhanasar clearly satisfied each and every component of the NYSDOT case, USCIS denied his NIW application. In response to that denial, we prepared a detailed brief, pointing out that USCIS had failed to follow the most basic principles that govern how it is required to adjudicate cases like his, and pointing out how the evidence (originally submitted and the evidence submitted in response to the RFE) complied with the full NYSDOT test and more than satisfied it. In fact, the USCIS decision completely ignored the substantive portions of the many support letters and other evidence, and simply quoted portions of the letters that commented on his excellent work ethic, and similar qualities. (USCIS ignored the portions of the letters that confirmed, in explicit detail, how his work will generate a sustained national benefit to US security by advancing military use of high speed propulsion.) Although those parts of the support letters were accurate, by quoting only those general, complimentary portions, USCIS acted as if the rest of the letters and other significant evidence did not exist. In effect, by ignoring core evidence that it had requested in its RFE, USCIS was able to use the vague nature of the NYSDOT test to deny Dr. Dhanasar’s NIW application.

    We filed the appeal brief in June of 2014, and in the normal course, the AAO should have issued a decision by the end of 2014 or early 2015. However, in February of 2015, the AAO issued its own RFE, asking for extensive evidence regarding:

    1. The national impact of his work in the field of hypersonic propulsion and computational fluid dynamics

    2. Use of his research by government and industry

    3. Funding he had received from various government entities

    4. Funding received by North Carolina A&T University’s NASA Center for Aerospace Research

    5. Research papers, citations, etc., that documented his development of a novel numerical method to compute hypersonic air flow at a significantly reduced cost

    6. NASA’s interest in this method

    7. His plans for future work in the field

    An RFE is not unusual in cases before USCIS, but it is rare in a case at the AAO. In addition, an RFE can mean many things, some of which are negative. In this case, however, it indicated that the AAO viewed Dr. Dhanasar’s case as more than just another appeal from a USCIS denial. The scope of the RFE implied that the AAO was looking beyond the facts in his particular case, and that turned out to be true. In its review of what USCIS had done in order to deny the case, the AAO concluded that the long-standing criticisms of NYSDOT from practitioners all over the country were valid: the NYSDOT test was too vague, and created an unreliable method to determine if the national interest should excuse an applicant from the normal labor cert requirement.

    In its decision reversing USCIS in Matter of Dhanasar, the AAO completely vacated NYSDOT. The AAO first summarized the NYSDOT test, which had established three prongs for applicants to address: first, that the area of employment is of “substantial intrinsic merit”; second, that any proposed benefit from the applicant’s work will be “national in scope”; and finally, that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor cert were required for the applicant in the NIW case.

    The AAO declared that the first requirement of showing the applicant’s work had “intrinsic” merit can be too subjective. It also concluded that the second requirement (showing the benefit to be “national in scope”) on occasion has been construed too much in geographic terms. Finally, it found the third prong to be the most troublesome, in part because the NYSDOT opinion described that requirement in several different ways: including proof that the applicant showed “influence in the field”; showing the national interest would be harmed if a labor cert were required; proof that the applicant presents a national benefit that outweighs the national interest inherent in the labor cert process; and proof that the applicant will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available US worker having the same qualifications. This last iteration of the third prong is probably the most difficult to address, because, as a practical matter, it essentially asks the applicant to show that he is the only truly qualified applicant—the exact point of a labor cert.

    The AAO also noted that there are some applicants whose past accomplishments are exceptional but may not indicate future successes (another iteration of the third NYSDOT prong), and that there are entrepreneurs (and this is quite significant) who should be granted an NIW, but who cannot prevail under the NYSDOT standard.

    After explaining why the NYSDOT opinion was no longer an acceptable test for NIW cases, the AAO announced its new NIW standard:

    1. That the applicant’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.

    2. The applicant is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

    3. On balance, it would be beneficial to the US to waive the requirements of a job offer and, therefore, the normal labor certification requirement.

    The AAO decision includes significant commentary on the nature of acceptable evidence that practitioners can include in NIW cases, and in doing so it appears that the AAO has made the new standard more adaptable to modern economic, scientific, artistic and entrepreneurial trends and conditions. We will discuss those comments in a subsequent posting, but for now, the new standard is in play. In fact, on the same day that it issued Matter of Dhanasar, it also approved another NIW case filed by Greg Siskind of Memphis, using the Dhanasar standard. (Greg has posted an excellent summary of the Dhanasar decision on his website.)

    The takeaways from Dhanasar are several: first, never give up. Practitioners around the country have called on the AAO to vacate NYSDOT for years, arguing correctly that the standard is too vague and that many deserving cases are denied, harming the applicants as well as the US. Second, never underestimate your client. In this case, Dr. Dhanasar provided us with exceptional materials to use in our REF responses, and was involved in helping craft the arguments we advanced to USCIS and to the AAO. Third, draw on the talents of your support staff. Kelly Gamble, our Senior Paralegal, was instrumental in keeping track of and organizing a massive amount of documentation at multiple stages of this case, and helping edit and proofread multiple filings. Her work was instrumental in the case. Fourth, the government sometimes sees the importance of making significant changes in case law, and does what is necessary to make that change. It took over 2 years for the decision to issue in Dhanasar, but the wait was well worth it. We are grateful for the new standard, and grateful for the hard work of the AAO in crafting it. More to the present case, Dr. Dhanasar is well on his way to resuming his work in a field that is important to the security of the United States. We are very lucky to have him here, and Chapman Law Firm is honored to have represented such an outstanding and deserving client.

    About The Author

    Gerard M. Chapman has been a NC Board Certified Immigration Law Specialist since 1997, and has practiced immigration law and been a member of AILA since 1987.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      Editing a comment
      This is certainly a great AAO decision, and congratulations are due to Mr. Chapman, but we have to ask which issues are going to be more important in the coming years of Donald Trump's America: a few AAO technical changes, however welcome, in the requirements for NIW, a green card category which applies to (one would assume) only a very small percentage of the total number of people who apply for immigration benefits each year, and which the Trump administration can easily relegate to the trashcan of immigration history by issuing a couple of new NIW regulations or appointing a few new AAO members; or much larger and more fundamental questions concerning America's immigration demographics for the next half century, or how changes in immigration policy might effect the continuation of America's democracy.

      It is great that the AAO has, at least up until January 20, done some needed rearranging of the deck chairs of America's immigration Titanic. For those who are also interested in following what happens after the iceberg hits, I recommend going to my two latest posts:

      Could Trump's Muslim Immigrant Tracking, "Criminal Alien" Incarceration and Assaults on Free Speech Signal End for American Democracy?


      Will White Nationalist Jared Taylor's Proposal to Ban Non-European Immigration for up to 50 years influence Trump's immigration policies?

      The links are as follows:


      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law

      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 01-03-2017, 03:35 PM.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
  • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
    PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
    08-13-2018, 02:21 PM