machine learning and deep learning
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: previous research and contributions are valuable
Evidence type: recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI and CETs
Evidence type: reports and policy manual references
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance machine learning, deep learning, and planning, reasoning, and decision making to result in national or global implications within a particular field.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed research projects have potential to impact national policies
Evidence type: project summaries
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“he has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to impact national government policies and advance the field of artificial intelligence.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: employment and projects have broader impact
Evidence type: job duties and employer information
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence of his work within the company does not establish a broader impact directly attributable to the Petitioner or his specific proposed endeavor.”
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 recommendation letters insufficient to establish that previous research and contributions are valuable. 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?