artificial intelligence / data science
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · —
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The Beneficiary's contributions will reach far beyond the Petitioner.
Evidence type: support letters from managers
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not establish how these contributions to the team or the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's work would rise to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it advances AI, a critical and emerging technology.
Evidence type: expert opinion, support letters, personal statement, articles
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the expert opinion dated December 2024 'assess[es] the industry impact and national importance of the endeavors of [ the Petitioner's] employees' and does not discuss the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor, speaking rather to the contributions of the Petitioner.”
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 support letters from managers insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's contributions will reach far beyond the Petitioner.. 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?