data 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: work in STEM field establishes national importance
Evidence type: STEM field evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Although the record establishes he will work in a STEM field, this alone does not result in national or global implications”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to alignment with government initiatives and importance of AI
Evidence type: government initiatives evidence, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While this evidence supports the Petitioner's statements about government support for the advancement of AI and its impact on small businesses; along with data science and its role in healthcare and the furtherance of clinical trials, the reports and articles in the record do not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: work as senior manager will improve clinical trials and healthcare
Evidence type: article about employer project, letter of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Evidence o~ !projects that the Petitioner may work on is not evidence ofthe prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor will have economic impacts and create jobs
Evidence type: economic multiplier statement, general assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks support for these assertions”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 STEM field evidence insufficient to establish that work in STEM field establishes 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?