How to Build a Proposed Endeavor That USCIS Cannot Deny
The EB 2 NIW approval rate fell to 35.7% in Q4 of FY2025, the first time more petitions were denied than approved. The legal standard has not changed. The Dhanasar three-prong framework established in 2016 still governs every NIW adjudication.
What has changed is the evidentiary standard: USCIS officers in 2025–2026 require more specific, more objective, and more carefully organized evidence than in prior years. A petition that earned approval in 2022 may now receive an RFE.
This article explains exactly what changed, what USCIS now requires for each of the three prongs, and how to build an evidence package that is genuinely approvable under current standards.
What Changed: The January 2025 USCIS Policy Update for EB 2 NIW Petition.
On January 15, 2025, USCIS updated its Policy Manual guidance on EB 2 NIW petitions. The update did not change the Dhanasar legal standard, but it clarified and, in practice, raised the bar for several elements of the adjudication.
| What the update clarified | Practical implication for your petition |
|---|---|
| For advanced degree professionals: the 5 years of post-bachelor's experience must be in the specialty directly tied to the proposed endeavor, not in any unrelated field | A PhD in chemistry proposing a fintech endeavor may not qualify as an advanced degree professional for that endeavor. The education and experience must connect directly to the proposed work. |
| For exceptional ability professionals: the exceptional ability must relate to the proposed endeavor in areas with shared skillsets, knowledge, or expertise | Exceptional ability in machine learning when the proposed endeavor is healthcare does not automatically qualify. The connection must be demonstrable and specific. |
| The proposed endeavor must be described specifically, vague references to working in a nationally important field are not sufficient | USCIS evaluates the specific thing you plan to do in the US, not the general importance of your field. Classroom teaching alone, even in STEM, typically does not satisfy national importance. |
| Business plans and expert letters must be corroborated by independent objective evidence, they are helpful but insufficient alone | A letter from a colleague saying your work is important, without independent citations, grant documentation, or other objective corroboration, carries little weight under the updated standard. |
| Entrepreneurs and startup founders: the guidance retains and expands the entrepreneur-friendly framework, accelerator acceptance, funding rounds, and business plan progress are explicitly recognized evidence types | Founders can demonstrate Prong 2 (well-positioned) through Y Combinator acceptance, seed funding from recognized VCs, and documented company milestones alongside traditional credentials. |
The Three Prongs: Evidence That Works and Evidence That Fails
Every piece of evidence in an EB 2 NIW petition must map to at least one of the three Dhanasar prongs. Evidence that does not clearly support a specific prong adds volume without value, and in 2026, can actually dilute the overall case by making it harder for the USCIS officer to identify the strongest arguments.
DHANASAR PRONG 1
Substantial Merit AND National Importance
What USCIS wants to see:
USCIS evaluates two distinct elements: (1) intrinsic merit of the proposed endeavor, is the work itself valuable?, and (2) national scope, do the benefits extend beyond a single employer, client base, or local community to affect the US broadly? Both elements must be present. The field’s general importance is not sufficient; the specific proposed endeavor must have national importance.
Strong evidence examples:
Federal policy documents explicitly naming your sector (CHIPS Act, IRA, NIAID research priorities, NSF priority areas). Published statistics demonstrating a national-scale problem your work addresses. Evidence that your specific technology, research, or approach has been piloted or adopted at multiple US sites. Letters from US government agencies or quasi-governmental bodies confirming the national need for your work. Independent economic analyses quantifying national impact. Congressional testimony, GAO reports, or policy white papers citing the national importance of your specific area.
Evidence that fails: General statements that ‘AI is important for the US economy’ without tying your specific proposed work to that importance. Coverage in a trade publication without documenting how your specific work addresses a national need. Work that benefits a single company’s operations without broader US applicability. Classroom teaching in a STEM field, USCIS policy explicitly states this generally does not meet national importance. Consulting for others who work in nationally important fields.
DHANASAR PRONG 2
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
What USCIS wants to see:
USCIS evaluates whether you specifically, with your education, track record, network, and resources, are the right person to advance this particular proposed endeavor. The USCIS Policy Manual lists more than 15 types of evidence for this prong. Crucially, the January 2025 update emphasizes that the petition must explicitly bridge ‘what I have done’ to ‘what I will do in the US.’ This bridge must be documented, not implied
Strong evidence examples:
Education credentials and advanced degrees directly tied to the proposed endeavor (with the field match now explicitly required). Prior success in directly related work, publications cited by others, patents licensed or built upon, funded research projects, accelerator acceptance, seed or Series A funding, documented company milestones. Letters from independent senior experts who explain specifically how your background positions you to advance this particular endeavor. Government grants from NSF, NIH, NIAID, DOE, or DARPA, these provide both national importance evidence (Prong 1) and positioning evidence (Prong 2) simultaneously. Progress already made toward the proposed endeavor: prototype documentation, pilot study results, beta user metrics, published preliminary findings.
Evidence that fails: Letters that praise your general excellence without addressing the specific proposed endeavor. Vague statements about future plans without documenting current positioning. Business plans without independent corroboration, a business plan is helpful but must be supported by contracts, pilot data, funding commitments, or other objective evidence. Credentials in a field unrelated to the proposed endeavor (the January 2025 update has raised USCIS scrutiny of this specifically).
DHANASAR PRONG 3
Beneficial for the US to Waive the Job Offer Requirement
What USCIS wants to see:
The balancing test asks whether the national benefit of having this person pursue this endeavor without the standard labor market test outweighs the interest in protecting the labor market. For most self-petition professionals in 2026, the strongest Prong 3 arguments are: (1) urgency of the national need that outweighs standard process delays; (2) impracticality of a standard employer-sponsored process for the specific type of work proposed; (3) STEM PhD status with critical and emerging technology focus, which receives especially favorable Prong 3 consideration under the updated guidance
Strong evidence examples:
STEM PhD working on critical and emerging technologies or national-security-adjacent fields, the January 2025 update explicitly provides favorable Prong 3 consideration for this profile. Letters from US government agencies or quasi-governmental entities explaining why your work is urgently needed, these are described in the updated Policy Manual as ‘almost decisive.’ Self-directed research, entrepreneurial, or consultancy work that is structurally incompatible with the standard PERM employer-sponsored model. A clear argument that requiring standard PERM would create a delay that harms the national interest by postponing nationally important work.
Evidence that fails: Arguments that ‘my field has a shortage of workers’ without connecting the waiver specifically to your endeavor. Generic arguments that the standard PERM process is burdensome (true for everyone, therefore not specific to you). Cases where there is no plausible argument that the PERM process would be impractical or harmful, if you could be sponsored by a standard employer, the Prong 3 argument must explain why NIW is preferable from a national interest standpoint.
The Five Most Common RFE Triggers in 2026, and How to Prevent Them
| # | RFE trigger | Prevention strategy |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Weak national importance argument, the most common Prong 1 failure: describing your field as nationally important without demonstrating that your specific proposed endeavor is nationally important | Name at least two specific federal policy documents, congressional appropriations, or government reports that explicitly reference your specific area of work. Then articulate specifically how your proposed endeavor advances those named priorities, not just that your field matters, but why your work within it matters nationally. |
| 2 | Generic expert letters, USCIS officers in 2025–2026 are explicitly skeptical of letters containing general praise without specific, verifiable facts. The 2025 policy update makes clear that letters must corroborate objective evidence elsewhere in the filing | Brief every letter writer with a specific template: what they must address (which Dhanasar prong), what specific achievements to reference (with dates and verifiable details), and what they should not say (general praise without specifics). Letters that cite specific publications, specific deployments, or specific measurable outcomes the officer can verify elsewhere in the filing are treated with substantially more weight. |
| 3 | Missing field-of-expertise alignment, since January 2025, USCIS explicitly requires that the experience being claimed as EB-2 qualification must be in the specialty related to the proposed endeavor | Map your education, experience, and proposed endeavor explicitly in the petition cover letter. If there is any question about alignment, address it directly rather than hoping the officer will make a favorable inference. A PhD in engineering proposing an engineering endeavor is straightforward. A PhD in chemistry proposing a healthcare technology endeavor needs a clear bridge argument. |
| 4 | No documented progression from past work to proposed US endeavor, USCIS calls this the 'bridge' requirement. The petition must explicitly connect what you have done to what you plan to do in the US | Include a dedicated section in the proposed endeavor narrative titled something like 'How My Prior Work Positions Me for This Endeavor.' This section should be 1 to 2 pages of specific narrative, not a list of credentials, but an argument for why your specific track record makes you the right person to advance this specific work in the US. |
| 5 | Cross-referencing inconsistencies, a new 2025–2026 RFE pattern: USCIS officers now sometimes cross-reference I-140 petition materials with prior government submissions, including prior visa applications, prior I-140 filings, and O-1 or EB-1 petitions | Ensure all dates, roles, employment relationships, and credential claims in the NIW petition are consistent with prior immigration filings. Have your attorney audit the petition against your prior filings before submission. Inconsistencies in dates, titles, or institutional affiliations, even minor ones, are increasingly being flagged. |
The EB 2 NIW Evidence Checklist, Complete Filing Package
The following is a current evidence checklist organized in the order USCIS recommends for petition organization. Every listed item should be included unless it is genuinely inapplicable to your profile.
Section A, EB-2 Qualification Evidence
Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers), signed and complete
Form I-907 (Premium Processing) if using, separate filing after I-140 receipt
Official academic transcripts and degree certificates for all advanced degrees (with certified English translations)
For bachelor’s + 5-years route: employment verification letters explicitly stating full-time status, dates, and the specific specialty, ‘full-time’ must be stated explicitly per 2026 RFE trend data
For exceptional ability route: documentation of at least 3 of 6 regulatory criteria (academic record, 10 years’ full-time experience, professional license, high salary evidence, professional association membership, recognition of achievements)
Section B, Proposed Endeavor Narrative
Proposed endeavor statement (typically 5 to 15 pages): specific description of what you plan to do in the US, what national problem it addresses, who benefits, and why the impact extends beyond a single employer or client
Supporting documentation making the plan ‘real’: business plan (for entrepreneurs), research roadmap (for researchers), project summaries, implementation timeline, contracts in development, or pilot program documentation
Federal policy alignment documents: government reports, congressional acts, agency priority lists, or published statistics that specifically name your area of work and its national importance, minimum 2, ideally 4 to 6
Section C, Evidence of Well-Positioned Status (Prong 2)
Curriculum vitae / resume with all positions, dates, and responsibilities, the most-read document in the petition
Prior published work with citation data: PDF copies of publications, Google Scholar screenshots showing independent citation counts, citation reports from Web of Science or Scopus
Grant award documentation from NSF, NIH, NIAID, Wellcome Trust, MRC, or equivalent competitive bodies, include the funding amount, competitive award rate (e.g., NSF grant acceptance rate approximately 25%), and project description
Patent documentation: USPTO grant notices with citation data; licensing agreements if applicable; third-party patent citations from independent entities
Funding or investment documentation for entrepreneurs: term sheets, SAFEs, or signed investment agreements from recognized investors; accelerator acceptance letters with acceptance rates documented
Evidence of progress already made: prototype documentation, pilot study results, beta metrics, preliminary publication findings, letters of intent from partner organizations
4 to 8 independent expert letters: letters from senior professionals who are genuinely independent (not direct supervisors or close collaborators) and who address specific Dhanasar criteria with specific, verifiable facts
Section D, Prong 3 Supporting Evidence
Argument for why waiving the standard job offer requirement serves the national interest, specifically addressing why PERM labor certification would be impractical, harmful, or insufficient for the proposed endeavor
Letters from US government agencies or quasi-governmental entities (if available) explaining why your specific work is urgently needed, the January 2025 Policy Manual update describes these as ‘almost decisive’ for Prong 3
For STEM PhDs: evidence that the proposed endeavor is in critical and emerging technology fields as designated by the Department of Defense or equivalent government authority
Get your EB 2 NIW evidence package evaluated before you file
Our free assessment maps your current professional record against all three Dhanasar prongs, identifies which prongs your evidence currently supports, which are thin under the 2026 USCIS standard, and what specific documentation would strengthen each weakness before filing. A complete petition filed once is materially better than an incomplete petition that generates an RFE.
advancemyprofile.com · Free Assessment · Powered by Immignis LLC
Frequently asked questions about EB-2 NIW (2026)
National importance is the element USCIS officers challenge most frequently in 2026. The most common failure is describing the field as important without demonstrating that the specific proposed endeavor is nationally important. Officers now require specific, measurable evidence that the proposed work benefits the country broadly, not just one employer or client base. This means at minimum two to three specific federal policy documents, congressional acts, or government reports that explicitly reference your specific area, plus documentation of how your specific work addresses those named priorities.
Expert letters are not legally required by USCIS for an EB-2 NIW petition. However, they function as essential connective tissue between your objective evidence and the Dhanasar prong arguments, and a petition without them faces materially higher RFE risk. The 2025 Policy Manual update makes clear that letters must corroborate objective evidence documented elsewhere in the filing, they should cite specific, verifiable facts (named publications, documented deployments, cited research) rather than general praise. USCIS in 2025–2026 shows clear preference for letters that reference specific achievements the officer can independently verify.
Yes, the January 2025 USCIS Policy Manual update explicitly confirms that you can pursue EB-2 NIW even if you are already eligible for employer sponsorship or are being sponsored. The update makes clear that having access to employer-sponsored EB-2 through PERM does not disqualify you from the NIW route and does not weaken the Prong 3 argument. You can file EB-2 NIW and EB-2 PERM simultaneously, and you can maintain both pending I-140 petitions, with the earlier priority date from either petition applying to both under 8 CFR 204.5(e).
Very specific. USCIS has moved away from accepting general descriptions of working in an important field. The proposed endeavor must explain: (1) specifically what you plan to do in the US, not ‘conduct AI research’ but ‘develop federated machine learning algorithms for early detection of sepsis in ICU settings, addressing a condition that causes 270,000 American deaths annually according to the CDC’; (2) what national problem it addresses with named, sourced statistics; (3) who benefits and how the benefit extends beyond a single organization; and (4) why this work would not happen without your specific contribution. The January 2025 Policy Manual update devotes several pages to what qualifies as national importance, the guidance explicitly states that classroom teaching alone, and consulting for others who work in nationally important fields, generally do not qualify.
