veterinary medicine
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: The proposed endeavor has national importance because it promotes societal welfare and public health by controlling animal overpopulation and preventing zoonotic diseases.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter and recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“they provide little probative information to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor aligns with STEM initiatives and has broader implications due to a new spaying/neutering technique.
Evidence type: policy manual citation and description of technique
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she has not explained how this technique offers broader implications for the veterinary medicine industry or nation as a whole”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has substantial positive economic effects, particularly in economically depressed areas.
Evidence type: appellate brief assertions
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“she has not explained, much less quantified, what these positive economic benefits specifically would be”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open 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 expert opinion letter and recommendation letters insufficient to establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it promotes societal welfare and public health by controlling animal overpopulation and preventing zoonotic diseases.. 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?