machine learning and computational…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Evidence type: personal statement, letters from professors
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“We therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision under prong one and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: education, published papers, citation record, employer letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“But after consideration of all the relevant factors under Dhanasar 's second prong, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 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 education, published papers, citation record, employer letter insufficient to establish that the petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.. 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?