artificial intelligence
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: APPROVED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: government designation, expert letters, government funding
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner has demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the endeavor
Evidence type: education, publications, citations, peer review, research experience
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“He also demonstrated that his proposed U.S. work has substantial merit and that he is well positioned to advance it.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: expert letters, government funding, field significance
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner has demonstrated that, on balance, a job offer waiver would benefit the United States.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open source PDF
What 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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, education, publications, citations, peer review, research experience was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, expert letters, government funding, field significance was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, government designation, expert letters, government funding was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?