physical therapy
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
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDProng 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
NOT_DISCUSSEDOther findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“the letters do not explain how this research is relevant to the field of physical therapy and whether the Petitioner was recognized for her research, presentations, or articles”
p. 4
“the relevant evidence ... do not establish in totality that she is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business”
p. 5
“a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation, satisfying 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C)”
p. 3
“the record does not contain documents describing the requirements for membership in the association”
p. 3
“the letter does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) as it does not contain, for example, a specific description of the duties performed by the Petitioner”
p. 3
What 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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision discussed physical therapy. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- This decision was resolved before reaching the Dhanasar merits analysis. What does my case need to establish first — the underlying EB-2 classification itself — before the national-interest question is even reached?
- 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?