clinical laboratory science / blood…
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
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because AI forecasting models can help manage U.S. blood supplies on a national level.
Evidence type: evidence that AI forecasting models have outperformed other predictors of blood needs in small populations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner submitted evidence that AI forecasting models have outperformed other predictors of blood needs in small populations and that they could help to more efficiently manage U.S. blood supplies on a national level.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
FAILPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor due to his expertise, recognition, and role in developing a COVID-19 laboratory.
Evidence type: recommendation letters, educational documents, strategic framework, evidence of statistics courses, role in COVID-19 laboratory
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record supports SCOPS' finding of insufficient evidence of his AI knowledge and abilities.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 recommendation letters, educational documents, strategic framework, evidence of statistics courses, role in COVID-19 laboratory insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor due to his expertise, recognition, and role in developing a COVID-19 laboratory.. 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?