Success Story: We Helped a Criminology Researcher Secure National Interest Waiver Approval After a Request for Evidence
Client’s Testimonial:
"I want to sincerely thank you for helping me complete my case over the past two months. The entire preparation process was far more thorough and professional than I had expected. I quickly realized that this is something I could never have done on my own. My attorney was incredibly knowledgeable, diligent, and kind throughout the process. I deeply appreciate all the careful attention given to my petition. Thank you again for your outstanding support."
On June 27th, 2026, we received another EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) approval for a Ph.D. Candidate (Teaching Assistant) in the Field of Criminology (Approval Notice).
General Field: Criminology
Position at the Time of Case Filing: Ph.D. Candidate (Teaching Assistant)
Country of Origin: South Korea
State of Residence at the Time of Filing: Arkansas
Approval Notice Date: June 27th, 2026
Processing Time: 10 months, 27 days (Premium Processing Upgrade Requested)
Case Summary:
The client’s work addresses a difficult public policy question: how social disruption, victimization, early justice system contact, and public attitudes shape juvenile delinquency and broader criminal justice outcomes. As an expert in criminology, the client proposed to continue research that identifies and models these causal pathways so that policymakers, practitioners, and communities can better design evidence-based interventions to reduce youth recidivism, improve public safety, and support fairer justice reform.
This National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition was approved after the client received a Request for Evidence (RFE). At the time of filing, the client held an M.S. in social data analytics and research and was conducting criminology research in an academic setting. Because the case involved a social science field where impact is often demonstrated through policy relevance, empirical rigor, and scholarly use rather than only large citation numbers, we focused on explaining why the client’s research had practical national value and why the client was well positioned to continue advancing this work in the United States.
To support the NIW petition, we emphasized the client’s record of scholarship in criminology, including 10 peer-reviewed journal articles, 1 book chapter, and 1 technical report. Among the journal articles, 8 were first-authored, which helped show that the client was not merely participating in research projects but often taking a leading role in developing and presenting original findings. Although the client’s citation count was 18 at the time of filing, we did not present this number as automatically sufficient. Instead, we explained how an adjudicator could view these citations in context, especially because several of the client’s works were recent and had already begun to receive scholarly attention within the field.
We also highlighted the substance of the client’s research rather than relying only on numerical credentials. The petition explained that the client’s work contributes to understanding issues such as family disruption, residential instability, public attitudes toward criminal justice policy, and the factors that can increase or reduce delinquent behavior. By connecting these research themes to national concerns surrounding youth crime prevention, public safety, and evidence-based justice policy, we demonstrated that the client’s work had substantial merit and national importance under the NIW standard.
The case was supported by 3 recommendation letters from experts familiar with the importance of the client’s research and its relevance to criminology and criminal justice policy. These letters helped confirm that the client’s work was not only academically sound but also meaningful to broader efforts to improve intervention strategies and justice outcomes. We used these letters to reinforce the connection between the client’s research record, future plans, and the national interest, rather than presenting them as general praise.
Because the client received an RFE, we paid particular attention to strengthening the explanation of how the client satisfied each NIW requirement. We clarified the national importance of the proposed work, connected the client’s publication and citation record to demonstrated influence, and explained why the client’s advanced training and ongoing research activities positioned the client to continue contributing to the field. We also noted that the available materials did not provide a specific peer-review count, so the petition strategy focused instead on the client’s publications, citations, authorship role, recommendation letters, and the policy relevance of the research.
Ultimately, the I-140 NIW petition was approved after an RFE review. This approval shows how a carefully structured petition can present a social science researcher’s impact in a way that is clear, credible, and aligned with the NIW framework, especially when the evidence is explained through both scholarly contribution and practical national value.