digital health technology
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: platform will have national impact based on expert opinions
Evidence type: recommendation letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the letters do not offer sufficient information and evidence to substantiate the claimed impact or establish its impact rising to the level of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: economic projections show national importance
Evidence type: economic projections
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the record does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these economic projections, nor does it adequately explain how the targeted number of platform users, Medicare savings, and domestic job creations will be realized.”
Decision PDF, p. 5Open source PDF
Petitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance because it supports federal health strategy and has broad impact
Evidence type: article, federal strategic plan, CMS request for information
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“the documents may show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor indirectly supports the government's initiatives in promoting value-based care and digital health. However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence specifically mentioning her proposed endeavor...”
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 recommendation letters insufficient to establish that platform will have national impact based on expert opinions. 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?