health promotion and chronic disease…
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 because it enhances well-being of U.S. citizens and targets rural and underserved communities
Evidence type: reports from government and non-governmental agencies
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her organization and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
NOT_DISCUSSEDPetitioner argued: 12 years of experience working in public affairs section of Mexican consulate makes her well positioned
Evidence type: letters of support
USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT
“The Director farther determined that the Petitioner had not established she was well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
Decision PDF, p. 2Open source PDF
Prong 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 reports from government and non-governmental agencies insufficient to establish that proposed endeavor has national importance because it enhances well-being of U.S. citizens and targets rural and underserved communities. 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?