artificial intelligence and machine…
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: The proposed endeavor will create new employment opportunities and have substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: business plan projections
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance because it will enhance the biometrics industry on a national level.
Evidence type: industry report, letters of interest, employment offer letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record lacks adequate corroborating evidence that the Petitioner's contributions would be adopted or implemented on a national scale or result in broader impact to his field.”
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 business plan projections insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor will create new employment opportunities and have substantial positive economic effects.. 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?