art therapy / rehabilitation therapy

EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision

2025-10-06·DISMISSED·IN RE: 39027055

Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)

Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance

FAIL

Petitioner argued: The Beneficiary's specialization in art therapy sets her apart and her methods have national implications.

Evidence type: recommendation letter from supervisor

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: INSUFFICIENT

The supervisor stated that the Beneficiary's specialization in art therapy sets her apart from her peers and she uses a unique therapeutic modality in her art therapy groups. ... However, the Petitioner has not established the extent to which her proposed endeavor's methods or strategies improve upon those already available and in use in the United States such that her proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within her field or for the United States.

page not extractedOpen source PDF

Petitioner argued: The Beneficiary's contributions will advance public health and safety, assist in criminal justice reform, and generate substantial economic benefits.

Evidence type: recommendation letter from program director

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

The second recommendation letter is also dated February 2025 and is by the Petitioner's program director, whose letter is similar in its assertions to the supervisor's letter and adds, without corroboration, that the Beneficiary's contributions will advance public health and safety by addressing recidivism, will assist in criminal justice reform, and will generate substantial economic benefits by reducing the costs of incarceration. However, without evidence supporting these assertions, the letters do not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her patients to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.

Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF

Petitioner argued: The Beneficiary's endeavor is highly important to the nation, providing major benefit to American healthcare and public safety.

Evidence type: beneficiary statement and recommendation letters

USCIS finding: INSUFFICIENT

The Beneficiary's statement described her duties as a behavioral therapist for Petitioner and how, after completing her doctoral studies, she plans to use her degree to enhance patient care. She said she would apply her research to identify and address gaps in treatment protocols and to advocate for systemwide improvements in therapeutic services. However, she did not explain the research she is performing, how it applies to her proposed endeavor, and how its application would have national or even global implications within her field.

Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF

Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

NOT_DISCUSSED

Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits

NOT_DISCUSSED

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 recommendation letter from supervisor insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's specialization in art therapy sets her apart and her methods have national implications.. 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?
See similar decisionsHow this data was built