credit recovery services with machine…
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: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its innovative machine learning technology.
Evidence type: business plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not explain ... how ... his machine learning technology ... would improve upon those already available and in use in the United States”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its economic impact and alignment with government priorities.
Evidence type: business plan, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner did not establish that the employment figures contained in his plans ... would utilize a significant population of workers ... or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth”
page not extractedOpen 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 business plan insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to its innovative machine learning technology.. 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?