artificial intelligence
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: research project on hyperparameter tuning tools
Evidence type: research documentation dated after filing
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the documentation will not be considered since it is dated after the date of filing the petition”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research will impact national government policies and advance AI field
Evidence type: broad claims without corroborating evidence
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: personal statement, research summaries, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he did not establish the endeavor is of national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open 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 research documentation dated after filing insufficient to establish that research project on hyperparameter tuning tools. 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?