nursing and healthcare
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 endeavor will generate substantial economic benefits and create jobs.
Evidence type: business plan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets, business expansion plans, and revenue forecasts will be reached.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: The proposed endeavor has national importance because the in-home healthcare industry is important and addresses workforce shortages.
Evidence type: expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, business plan
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the evidence does not establish that operating an in-home healthcare company will have broader implications or influence in the in-home healthcare field that will rise to the level of national importance.”
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 business plan insufficient to establish that the endeavor will generate substantial economic benefits and create jobs.. 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?