artificial intelligence research
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: His support letters, publication history, and citation record demonstrate national importance.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, publication history, citation record
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the support letters do not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The endeavor is nationally important because improvements to reliable computer vision and data mining systems have potential applications in manufacturing, healthcare, and education sectors.
Evidence type: articles and reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the articles and reports submitted do not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact on the field”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His research area furthers critical and emerging technologies and he is part of the 'world's AI talent'.
Evidence type: personal statement, curriculum vitae
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's assertion that he is among the 'world's AI talent'”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 letters of recommendation, publication history, citation record insufficient to establish that his support letters, publication history, and citation record demonstrate 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?