computer science and information…
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its implications for AI, energy systems, and communication systems.
Evidence type: evidence of specific potential applications
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner provided evidence of specific potential applications for improvements related to optimization theory, for example, the ability of power systems to use dynamic resource allocation to respond to changes in environment in real time and for autonomous vehicles to make better decisions under uncertainty.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: The Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Evidence type: education, support letters, publication record, citation history, peer review service
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner possesses a Ph.D. in a science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) field related to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's support letters identify specific examples of how the Petitioner's prior research has impacted the field, demonstrate interest in the Petitioner continuing to pursue his endeavor, and are supported by other evidence in the record such as the Petitioner's publication record, citation history, and peer review service.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: The United States would benefit from waiving the job offer requirement.
Evidence type: track record of research and significance of proposed work
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“Based on the Petitioner's track record of research and the significance of his proposed work to advance U.S. STEM interests, we conclude that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even if other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
What 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 satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, evidence of specific potential applications was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, education, support letters, publication record, citation history, peer review service was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, track record of research and significance of proposed work was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?