artificial intelligence applications…
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
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its potential impact on healthcare and AI.
Evidence type: expert letters, government designation, funding
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner established that her proposed U.S. work has national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: education, publications, peer review
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“She also demonstrated that her proposed U.S. work has substantial merit and that she is well positioned to advance it.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: On balance, a waiver would benefit the United States.
Evidence type: expert letters, funding, national security implications
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“Thus, the Petitioner has demonstrated that, on balance, a job offer waiver would benefit the United States.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
What 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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, expert letters, funding, national security implications was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, education, publications, peer review was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, expert letters, government designation, funding was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?