healthcare / primary care / telemedicine
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 due to telemedicine and addressing health disparities
Evidence type: articles about telemedicine, CMS fee schedule, governor's proclamation
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“this article and proclamation do not further establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Proposed endeavor will create thousands of healthcare jobs
Evidence type: response to RFE, business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not establish his company's future staffing levels and business activity stands to provide substantial economic effects”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: Proposed endeavor will have positive economic impact
Evidence type: business plan, statements about healthcare GDP
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's statements are not supported by evidence to establish his proposed endeavor will have a positive economic impact”
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 articles about telemedicine, CMS fee schedule, governor's proclamation insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to telemedicine and addressing health disparities. 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?