speech-language pathology
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: proposed endeavor will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers
Evidence type: business plan, personal statements
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish with probative information the types of jobs her endeavor may create, the number of workers her endeavor may cause to be employed, where those workers will work”
page not extractedOpen source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to increased demand for healthcare services and shortage of healthcare workers
Evidence type: personal statements, industry reports
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she has not sufficiently explained how she will educate the population and how many individuals will receive this education.”
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, personal statements insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers. 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?