behavioral economics
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
FAILPetitioner argued: NSF funding reflects national importance
Evidence type: funding evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“As the record does not establish NSF has funded the research projects the Petitioner specified as his proposed endeavor, this evidence does not relate to the national importance of his proposed endeavor but relates to his prior experience.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial positive economic effects
Evidence type: government publications
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“evidence of healthcare expenditures in the United States is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: letters of recommendation support national importance
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters in the record focus on the impact of the Petitioner's prior work and not the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor he sets forth in the petition.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to impact on healthcare system
Evidence type: industry reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While the reports in the record support these statements on the issues facing the U.S. healthcare system, they do not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor advances AI and human-machine interfaces
Evidence type: policy manual reference
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance AI or human-machine interfaces to result in national or global implications within a particular field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 funding evidence insufficient to establish that nSF funding reflects 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?