informatics
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's relation to a STEM field and CET establishes its national importance.
Evidence type: Critical and Emerging Technologies List
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Finally, we conclude that the proposed endeavor's relation to a STEM field, and specifically a CET, does not establish its national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The letters of recommendation establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“Similarly, we conclude that the Petitioner's letters of recommendation do not sufficiently establish the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it relates to AI, a critical and emerging technology, and aligns with federal priorities.
Evidence type: reports on economic benefits of AI, NIST publication, IMF report, PwC and IDC articles, survey, OMB memorandum, CET list
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While these articles and reports do demonstrate the potential impact that AI may have on the global economy and some of the considerations in the responsible use and development of AI, we conclude that they are not sufficiently probative as to the national importance of the Petitioner's 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 Critical and Emerging Technologies List insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor's relation to a STEM field and CET establishes its 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?