physical therapy
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Texas Service Center
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
FAILPetitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to addressing shortage of physical therapists and providing healthcare services.
Evidence type: industry reports and articles
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The industry reports and articles do not discuss the Petitioner's endeavor, nor do they establish how the benefits provided to his patients would result in broader implications to the field.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The endeavor will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers and substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. And, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were properly explained and supported with evidence, they do not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
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 industry reports and articles insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to addressing shortage of physical therapists and providing healthcare services.. 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?