machine learning and artificial…
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: proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI/NLP research
Evidence type: personal statements
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner's personal statements provide only brief: high-level summaries of his intended projects without specific details about his research activities and how his particular work will accomplish these broad objectives.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: past work at Typeface.ai demonstrates national importance
Evidence type: media coverage
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the article he submitted describing the product does not mention him specifically or the individual(s) who were involved in developing the product.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: support letters establish national importance
Evidence type: letters of recommendation
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient basis for their claims.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: research will have substantial economic impact
Evidence type: industry articles and reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“these generalized articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor, or otherwise demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a nationally important impact.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 personal statements insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to AI/NLP research. 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?