machine learning
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, documentation of broader implications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on research record
Evidence type: publications, citations, peer review, letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her work constitutes a record of success or progress in machine learning research rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
FAILPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: arguments about impracticality and urgency
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements”
Decision PDF, p. 8Open 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 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 publications, citations, peer review, letters insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on research record. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits), USCIS found the petitioner's arguments about impracticality and urgency insufficient to establish that waiver would benefit the United States. 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?