machine learning and autonomous systems
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: letter from professor shows national importance of his work
Evidence type: letter of recommendation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter does not offer sufficient information and evidence to establish that the Petitioner's proposed research projects ... will have an impact on the automated vehicles industry or the industrial robots industry in the United States at a level commensurate with national importance”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to importance of robotics and AI safety
Evidence type: government reports, industry reports, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and his planned research projects and their impact rising to the level of national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: federal funding and publications demonstrate eligibility
Evidence type: conference articles, funding acknowledgments
USCIS finding: NOT_DISCUSSED
“The Petitioner's academic and professional achievements, research contributions in the field, and evidence of grants from federal government entities with authority over the field of endeavor are relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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 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 letter of recommendation insufficient to establish that letter from professor shows national importance of his work. 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?