artificial intelligence (AI) research
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: His research aims to resolve critical challenges in data security, algorithmic efficiency, and regulatory compliance across national security, healthcare, and digital infrastructure.
Evidence type: petitioner's clarification in response to RFE
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not adequately shed light on how the research, development, and refinement of algorithms to improve the privacy performance of online platforms would extend beyond the entities in healthcare and computer systems domains seeking out those services.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because AI has wide-ranging implications and his research has implications for public health.
Evidence type: petitioner's statements and description of proposed endeavor
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence in the record does not convincingly demonstrate that his activities and research have national or even global impact in his field, or broader implications rising to a level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: no specific evidence submitted
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentation regarding the economic impact of the proposed endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: His previous research and the importance of AI demonstrate national importance.
Evidence type: recommendation letters and articles/reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained the relevance of his previous research to his proposed research”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open 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 petitioner's clarification in response to RFE insufficient to establish that his research aims to resolve critical challenges in data security, algorithmic efficiency, and regulatory compliance across national security, healthcare, and digital infrastructure.. 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?