artificial intelligence
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it will create ripple effects across the economy and position the U.S. as a global leader in AI.
Evidence type: reports and articles about AI impacts, letters of support, expert opinion letter
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not contain evidence to illustrate how optimizing efficiencies for his employer-work that will 'directly support' his employer's operations-will lead to outcomes of the scope he describes.”
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 reports and articles about AI impacts, letters of support, expert opinion letter insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it will create ripple effects across the economy and position the U.S. as a global leader in AI.. 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?