artificial intelligence
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: proposed research projects are novel and impactful
Evidence type: statements and recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“He has not provided evidence to support his claims that his proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly or would be different from work typically performed by a senior AI engineer for his employer.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research will have broad impact beyond employer
Evidence type: publications and conference presentations
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence corroborating his research work would extend beyond his employer and its clients.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to advancing AI and STEM
Evidence type: articles and reports on AI importance
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence submitted in support of his claims does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 statements and recommendation letters insufficient to establish that proposed research projects are novel and impactful. 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?