connected autonomous vehicle…
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 Beneficiary's work has national importance due to its impact on connected autonomous vehicle manufacturing and OTA updates, security, and ADAS features.
Evidence type: letters of support, articles, reports, executive orders
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these statements do not contain a level of clarity and explanation as to the Beneficiary's work that would demonstrate these company advancements are attributable to her role as a driver information applications engineer to the level of national importance.”
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 letters of support, articles, reports, executive orders insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's work has national importance due to its impact on connected autonomous vehicle manufacturing and OTA updates, security, and ADAS features.. 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?