artificial intelligence and machine…
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: The Petitioner's collaboration with leading researchers and citation record indicate national importance.
Evidence type: citation record, collaboration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Finally, he asserts that his collaboration with leading researchers in the field as well as his citation record indicate that his research is of national or global importance in his field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's work on AI can save 5-10% on healthcare spending.
Evidence type: statistics
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner also highlights statistics related to the importance of AI technologies in the U.S.'s healthcare system because they will save 5-10% on healthcare spending.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's work on license plate recognition systems has national security implications and provides global competitive advantage.
Evidence type: expert letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner highlights one expert's description of his work's impact on license plate recognition systems; the letter states that the systems have national security implications, provide a global competitive advantage to the United States, improve the safety of U.S. citizens, and improve efficiency in the overall system.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance because it involves AI and machine learning, which are critical and emerging technologies.
Evidence type: industry reports, articles, expert letters, inclusion in CET list
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“SCOPS also considered and analyzed industry reports and articles submitted by the Petitioner to establish that his field, machine learning and artificial intelligence, are areas of national importance, but determined that although these subjects are important to the economy, the Petitioner had not established how his particular employment in this field would rise to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The Petitioner's contributions to AI and machine learning can lead to broader impact on the finance industry.
Evidence type: project documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner also highlights his work on [project] to demonstrate how his contributions to AI and machine learning technologies can lead to a broader impact on an industry (in that case, the finance industry).”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSProng 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 citation record, collaboration insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's collaboration with leading researchers and citation record indicate 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?