artificial intelligence
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 Petitioner's work at her employer has national importance.
Evidence type: letter from employer
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the author does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's specific projects at [employer] stand to have an impact that extends beyond the company and its clients to influence the Petitioner's field of endeavor.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because AI is increasingly relied upon by private industry and government.
Evidence type: expert opinion and recommendation letters
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“While these letters are generally supportive and positive factors, they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting her employer and its clients.”
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 letter from employer insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's work at her employer has national importance.. 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?