The Dhanasar Test: The Three Prongs of EB-2 NIW

Where the Dhanasar framework comes from and how it structures a petition

Every national interest waiver petition filed today is adjudicated against the standard set out in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). This decision replaced the older NYSDOT framework, which had required proof of a disadvantage to US workers — a standard many petitioners and adjudicators found unworkable in practice. Dhanasar discarded that requirement and replaced it with a three-prong test that is now the sole controlling standard for NIW eligibility.

The same three prongs are restated in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5. This chapter is the document officers actually consult when reviewing a case, and it is worth reading directly on uscis.gov rather than relying on secondhand summaries, since USCIS periodically updates the language and examples within it without changing the underlying prongs.

The three prongs, in order

1. The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.
2. The petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
3. On balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.

Structuring the petition letter around them

Because adjudicators evaluate the case prong by prong, the petition letter should mirror that structure exactly. Use the three prongs as literal section headings, in the order above, rather than folding them into a narrative biography or a chronological account of the applicant's career. Every piece of evidence discussed later in the letter should sit under one of these three headings, not scattered across a general "qualifications" section.

Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor

Defining the endeavor, not the job

The proposed endeavor is a specific, forward-looking description of work to be done, not the petitioner's job title or a summary of past accomplishments. A job title ("Senior Data Scientist") or a resume line ("has worked in machine learning since 2015") does not qualify as an endeavor statement. The endeavor should read like the opening of a research proposal or business plan: what will be built, studied, or deployed, using what methods, toward what outcome.

Vague: "To work as a machine learning engineer improving healthcare technology."

Specific: "To develop and deploy federated-learning models that allow hospital systems to jointly train diagnostic algorithms for early-stage sepsis detection without sharing patient-level data across institutions."

The second version names a method, a domain problem, and a mechanism of impact — it can be evaluated for merit and scope independent of the petitioner's biography.

Documenting merit and national scope

Once the endeavor is stated, the evidence for this prong should establish that the field or problem matters broadly, not that the petitioner personally matters. Useful categories:

• Market analyses or industry reports quantifying the size or growth of the relevant sector
• Funding data — grant amounts, NIH/NSF award figures, VC investment trends in the specific technology area
• Publications by others (not just the petitioner) showing the problem is recognized field-wide
• Government or agency reports (CDC, DOE, USDA, etc.) referencing the specific problem the endeavor addresses

Each document should be cited to show the problem's scale, not the petitioner's résumé — save personal qualifications for Prong 2.

Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor

USCIS lists four non-exclusive factors for this prong. Treat each as its own labeled subsection in the petition letter, not a single narrative paragraph, so the officer can check each factor off independently.

Education, skills, and knowledge

List degrees, specialized training, licenses, and relevant coursework, tied explicitly to the endeavor statement. Attach transcripts, diplomas, and certificates as exhibits, and reference them by exhibit number in the text rather than describing them generically.

Record of success

Document prior projects, products, or research with measurable outcomes: publications, citation counts, h-index (pulled from Google Scholar or Web of Science), patents, grants awarded, or commercial deployments. Where citation metrics are used, include a dated printout of the source database, since these numbers change over time.

A model or plan for future activities

Include a written implementation plan or timeline showing concrete steps: funding secured or sought, institutional affiliations, target milestones, and expected deliverables. A one-page timeline table with dates and activities is often clearer than prose.

Progress or interest from others

Gather letters, contracts, or communications from investors, collaborators, licensees, or government agencies showing specific interest in the endeavor — not generic praise for the applicant. Each letter should name the endeavor and describe a concrete interaction: funding offered, a pilot agreed to, or data shared.

For each factor, keep the subsection short and evidence-forward: one or two sentences of framing, followed by citations to specific exhibits. Avoid restating credentials that appear elsewhere without connecting them back to the endeavor defined in Prong 1.

Prong 3: Benefit to the United States from waiving the job offer requirement

This prong does not ask whether the petitioner deserves a green card. It asks whether requiring a labor certification — the standard test of whether a US worker is available for a specific job at a specific employer — makes sense given the nature of the work. The petition letter needs to argue the process, not the person.

Argument angle: impracticality of the labor market test

Labor certification assumes a fixed job with a fixed employer testing the domestic labor market for that exact position. If the endeavor is self-directed, spans multiple institutions, or does not correspond to a single job opening an employer would post, say so directly: "The proposed endeavor does not correspond to a discrete position that an employer would test through the labor certification process, because [specific structural reason]."

Argument angle: urgency of the field

Where the endeavor addresses a problem with a time-sensitive dimension — a public health threat, a supply chain vulnerability, an infrastructure gap — cite documents (agency reports, funding deadlines, published timelines) that establish the urgency independently, then connect that urgency to the cost of delay imposed by recruitment.

Argument angle: independent or cross-institutional work

If the work is not tied to one employer — consulting across labs, freelance research, multi-site clinical collaboration — explain why a single sponsoring employer and job order would misrepresent how the work is actually structured.

Avoid phrasing that reduces to "I am qualified so I should be exempted" — that argument belongs to Prong 2, not Prong 3, and reviewers read it as a category error.

Building a prong-by-prong evidence mapping table

Before drafting the petition letter's final version, build a single table that maps every piece of evidence to the claim it supports and the prong it belongs to. This table is a working document, not something USCIS requires you to submit, but it is the fastest way to catch gaps and orphaned exhibits before filing.

Table template

How to use it

1. Add one row per distinct piece of evidence — not one row per exhibit, since a single document (e.g., a long report) may support several claims across prongs.
2. Number exhibits sequentially as you finalize the table, then keep that numbering fixed through drafting.
3. Cross-check that every exhibit listed also appears in the formal exhibit list submitted with the petition, and that numbers match exactly.
4. Flag any prong with fewer supporting rows than the others — this usually signals where the letter needs more specific documentation rather than more narrative.

Common mistakes that trigger an RFE under each prong

Prong 1: endeavor statements that collapse into a resume

A common defect is describing the endeavor as a continuation of the applicant's career rather than a specific undertaking. Phrases like "to continue my research and contribute to my field" describe a person, not an endeavor, and give an officer nothing to test for national importance. If the endeavor statement could apply to any competent professional in the same job title, it is too broad. Every version of the statement — letter, table, references — should name the specific technology, method, population, or problem being addressed.

Prong 2: credentials with no bridge to the endeavor

Listing degrees, patents, or citation counts without connecting them to the endeavor invites an RFE asking how the evidence relates to the specific work described in Prong 1. Every credential subsection should end with a sentence tying the qualification back to the endeavor's stated goal.

Prong 3: restating qualification instead of addressing waiver rationale

Arguments that amount to "I am highly qualified, therefore the job offer requirement should be waived" miss the question the prong asks. Prong 3 concerns whether waiving labor certification is beneficial given impracticality, urgency, or the endeavor's structure — not the applicant's résumé, which belongs in Prong 2.

Generic recommendation letters

Letters that praise general excellence without naming the endeavor, describing its specific goals, or referencing exhibits read as templated. Every letter should quote or paraphrase the endeavor statement and cite specific projects, publications, or outcomes rather than offering unsupported superlatives.

Final checklist before filing

Before assembling the final packet, run through this list line by line. Each item catches a mismatch that an officer can spot in minutes and that generates an RFE.

Consistency of the endeavor statement

• The proposed endeavor is worded identically (or near-identically, with no substantive drift) in the petition letter, the evidence mapping table, and every reference or recommendation letter.
• No letter or exhibit describes a different or broader endeavor than the one argued in Prong 1.

Structure of the petition letter

• Prong 1, Prong 2, and Prong 3 each appear as their own labeled section or heading, in that order.
• Each section opens with a short statement of what it is proving, before the supporting narrative and evidence.
• No prong's argument is buried inside another prong's section.

Exhibit numbering

• Every exhibit cited in the petition letter appears in the exhibit list, and the numbers match exactly.
• Every row in the evidence mapping table has a corresponding exhibit number that exists in the actual exhibit list — no placeholders left unresolved.
• The exhibit list itself is ordered the same way it is referenced in the letter, not shuffled during final assembly.

Current guidance

• The Policy Manual language for Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 has been checked on uscis.gov within a reasonable window before filing, since wording and examples in the manual are updated periodically.
• Any figures, form editions, or fee amounts referenced elsewhere in the packet have been verified against the current uscis.gov listings rather than copied from an older source.