machine learning and AI
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: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: letters of support, conference presentations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: peer review service demonstrates well positioned
Evidence type: peer review documentation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“He has not demonstrated, however, that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research funding demonstrates well positioned
Evidence type: research paper acknowledgements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: citation record demonstrates well positioned
Evidence type: citation metrics, Google Scholar profile
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in his field, he has not demonstrated his work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's peer review documentation insufficient to establish that peer review service demonstrates well positioned. 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?