veterinary medicine
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 addressing national shortage of veterinarians
Evidence type: government initiatives evidence
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“it does not establish the impact her endeavor will have on these problems”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance due to economic impact
Evidence type: assertions of economic impact
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not support these assertions with corroborating evidence”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
Evidence type: expert opinion letter
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letter lacks sufficient detail and supporting evidence to establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have its intended impact”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
—Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
—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. 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 government initiatives evidence insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance due to addressing national shortage of veterinarians. 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?