cognitive artificial intelligence (AI)
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: Petitioner's citation record demonstrates impact
Evidence type: Google Scholar citation record, Clarivate Analytics percentile ratings
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner's bibliometrics evidence is unpersuasive to establish the significance of his citation record and research to the larger field of cognitive AI”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Ardent's interest in employing Petitioner demonstrates interest from relevant entities
Evidence type: offer letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter provided is undated and appears to postdate the filing of the petition”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's proposed endeavor is distinct from his employment
Evidence type: personal statement
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it is unclear what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would look like independent of his position”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner has a record of success and interest from relevant parties due to publications and grant funding
Evidence type: publications, citation record, grant letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not satisfied his burden.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Petitioner's research is funded by NASA and NSF
Evidence type: letters from Dr. M.H., published articles with grant acknowledgements
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence provided does not show that the Petitioner's research is funded through these U.S. government entities.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 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 whether the person was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 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 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor), USCIS found the petitioner's Google Scholar citation record, Clarivate Analytics percentile ratings insufficient to establish that petitioner's citation record demonstrates impact. 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?