actuarial science

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2026-01-20·DISMISSED·IN RE: 40796220

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI and machine learning solutions for pension solvency

Evidence type: letters of support, reports, articles

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

The letters from Petitioner's colleagues, however, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that his specific proposed work offers broader implications for the U.S. retirement system or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance.

Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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 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, reports, articles insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI and machine learning solutions for pension solvency. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built