machine learning for advanced materials
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: opinion letters support national importance
Evidence type: opinion letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the opinion letters do not explain how the Petitioner's prior research forms the basis for his proposed endeavor and they do not otherwise discuss the potential impact of his proposed research endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with national initiatives and STEM
Evidence type: government reports and articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research or provided objective, probative supporting evidence to understand how it would advance national initiatives or STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 opinion letters insufficient to establish that opinion letters support 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?