computer science education
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: statements, recommendation letters, articles, reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support her claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research will support national priorities in digital equity, CS for All, and workforce readiness
Evidence type: statement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she has not provided evidence corroborating her claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research will have broader impact to her field or implications rising to national importance
Evidence type: recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“her former advisors, however, do not identify or address her specific proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 6Open 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 statements, recommendation letters, articles, reports insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has 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?