machine learning technology
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: Funding from the Office of Naval Research's Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives program indicates national importance.
Evidence type: funding information
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the funding information submitted with the petition is a description of the request for proposal and lacks information regarding the project for which the Petitioner is being funded”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The independent citation record demonstrates the impact of his contributions extends beyond his current employer and the AI field.
Evidence type: citation record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not explain the reasons for the citations.”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: The endeavor will advance trusted AI ecosystems and foster globally interconnected research infrastructures, maintain U.S. leadership in ethical AI innovation, and amplify its economic and societal impact.
Evidence type: personal statement and citations
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not provide support for these assertions and more specifically how his particular endeavor would have a national impact.”
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 information insufficient to establish that funding from the Office of Naval Research's Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives program indicates 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?