professional cleaning and disinfection…
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: The proposed endeavor has national importance due to its impact on infection prevention and public health.
Evidence type: business plan, background documents
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the healthcare industry and the field of infection prevention to the level contemplated by Dhanasar”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and substantial positive economic effects.
Evidence type: business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner's business plan does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
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, background documents insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to its impact on infection prevention and public health.. 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?