computer science
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI safety, etc.
Evidence type: signed statements, articles, funding acknowledgments
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not adequately link how her 'develop[ment of] advanced computer science techniques for enhancing information processing and data analysis' performed by 'developing and maintaining' her employer's 'proprietary software' has national or even global impact or implicates broader matters rising to a level of national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, experience, citations
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, bibliometric data, academic credentials
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The totality of the evidence in the record does not sufficiently describe how well situated the Petitioner would be to advance her proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 7Open 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 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 signed statements, articles, funding acknowledgments insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI safety, etc.. What would make comparable evidence in my own case more persuasive?
- On Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's letters of recommendation, bibliometric data, academic credentials insufficient to establish that well positioned to advance proposed endeavor based on education, experience, citations. 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?