pharmacy and consulting
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 will have substantial positive economic effects, including job creation and cost savings.
Evidence type: business plan with projections
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The projections in this business plan are unsupported, and it is unclear how the proposed growth will occur.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its impact on healthcare and the opioid crisis.
Evidence type: expert opinion letters, letters of support, letters of interest, business plan, educational/professional background
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individual users of her platform to impact the healthcare industry or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
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 business plan with projections insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, including job creation and cost savings.. 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?