computer science
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: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its alignment with U.S. priorities in AI and machine learning, and its potential to reduce power consumption.
Evidence type: letters of recommendation, expert letters, industry reports
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's specific projects at Meta stand to have an impact that extends beyond the company and its clients to influence the field of computer science or other related fields and industries.”
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 letters of recommendation, expert letters, industry reports insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to its alignment with U.S. priorities in AI and machine learning, and its potential to reduce power consumption.. 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?