public health informatics
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 because it relates to public health informatics and national initiatives
Evidence type: personal statement, articles, reference letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: endeavor will have positive economic effects
Evidence type: assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not show that benefits to a regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: work will have broader implications in the field
Evidence type: publication record
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's record of publication is probative of whether he is well-positioned for his proposed endeavor, but does not establish national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open 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 statement, articles, reference letters insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance because it relates to public health informatics and national initiatives. 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?