A couple of sample cases for you (unfortunately most of these decisions are never published):
65 No. 14 Interpreter Releases 379
[snip]
“If an exchange alien is considered to be governmentally financed and a U.S. government agency would like him or her to remain in the country, it is up to the USIA to recommend a waiver of the two-year foreign residency requirement. In making such determination, the USIA takes into consideration foreign policy concerns. Recently the PRC has taken steps to drastically reduce the number of students going abroad, especially to the U.S., and is “encouraging” many currently abroad to return to China. According to Mr. Fruchterman, these actions are a policy concern that the USIA must take into account in deciding on a waiver. USIA has so far declined to make a favorable recommendation for PRC students even if there is an interested U.S. Government agency. Such an unfavorable recommendation goes automatically to the USIA Waiver Review Board. Significantly, however, the Board has sustained USIA recommendations more than 90 percent of the time.
USIA’s Waiver Review Board. AILA believes that USIA should abandon its current practice of denying waivers with the general statement that “program, policy and foreign aspects” of the case outweigh the basis upon which the waiver application is based, and instead explain the specific grounds upon which the denial is based. Mr. Fruchterman replied that the USIA is not going to change this practice because it has been found to be sufficient in the courts. He does not believe that USIA is required by law to go beyond the established procedures for waiver denials. He did say, however, that apart from Chinese cases there will be a general relaxation in USIA’s actions in hardship cases.”
This is, of course, not on point for your situation, as I am guessing you a) are not Chinese, and b) you aren’t talking about a hardship waiver. (Also, USIA doesn’t exist anymore, but its waiver functions have been absrobed by the State Dept.: here’s their FAQ on waivers: http://travel.state.gov/j_faq.html)
Then there’s 64 No. 20 INTERREL 623:
[snip]
“The U.S. Information Agency (USIA) has reinstituted a “de minimis” rule for granting waivers of the two-year home residency requirement of INA §212(e). The policy is set forth in a memorandum dated September 25, 1986 from C. Normand Poirier, then USIA Deputy General Counsel, to Richard L. Fruchterman, Assistant General Counsel of the USIA…As background, INA §212(e) requires J-1 exchange visitors to return home for two years if their exchange has been funded by the U.S. or a foreign government… The statute allows a waiver of that requirement under certain circumstances, but delegates wide discretion to the USIA to determine whether a waiver should be granted… in 1975, the USIA established a de minimis rule for considering waivers of the two-year foreign residency requirement. Under this policy, the USIA would normally recommend a waiver for a J-1 exchange visitor on a Fulbright travel grant if the amount of the grant was less than $2,000. “
I’m guessing you are getting more than $2,000 in government funding, and this provision appears to apply only to Fulbright travel grants anyway, so this isn’t on point either. Sorry I haven’t found anything more on point, but I just wanted to give you an idea of the considerations and level of legalistic nitpickiness involved.
so nothing has changed. I would still be interested in any advice or testimonials, or any info about just how difficult it is in practice to obtain that waiver.
)