Understanding the Dhanasar "Well Positioned" Prong: What Evidence Helps

What the second prong actually asks

The second Dhanasar prong asks a narrow, practical question: is this petitioner personally capable of carrying out the specific endeavor described in the petition? It does not ask whether the endeavor matters — that is prong one's job — and it does not ask whether, on balance, the US benefits more from waiving the labor certification than from enforcing it — that is prong three. A petitioner can have an endeavor of substantial merit and national importance and still fail prong two if the record doesn't show the capability to pursue it.

USCIS evaluates this capability through four factors:

1. Education, skills, and knowledge relevant to the endeavor.
2. A track record of success in related or analogous work.
3. A model or plan for how the endeavor will actually be carried out.
4. Progress already made, or interest expressed by potential customers, investors, collaborators, or other relevant stakeholders.

No single factor is dispositive, and USCIS has stated that a petitioner need not demonstrate a near-certainty of success — only a reasonable basis to conclude the endeavor is plausible given the petitioner's qualifications and preparation.

Why this distinction matters for evidence selection

Every document assembled for this prong should answer one question: does this show this petitioner, specifically, can do this endeavor, specifically? Evidence that only establishes the endeavor's importance — industry statistics, policy citations, general field significance — belongs in the prong-one exhibit set, not here.

Mapping your background to the four factors

Before drafting anything, build a simple inventory. This keeps you from over-documenting one factor while leaving another thin.

Step 1: Build the base table

Create a table with one row per Dhanasar factor and two columns: what you already have, and what you still need to obtain.

Step 2: Fill in what you have

Go through your files — diplomas, CVs, award letters, correspondence — and sort each item under the factor it supports. A single document can address more than one factor; note it in both rows if so.

Step 3: Identify the gaps

For each empty or thin cell in the "need to obtain" column, write down the specific action required: request a letter, pull a citation report, draft a plan section, or ask a contact to formalize an email into a signed letter.

This table becomes your production checklist for the rest of the petition-drafting process and later the basis for the evidence index described in Section 7.

Documenting education, skills, and knowledge

Five document types typically form this part of the exhibit set.

1. Degrees and transcripts. Include diplomas and official transcripts for every degree relevant to the endeavor, translated if issued outside the US. If coursework rather than the degree title shows relevance, annotate which courses connect to the proposed work.
2. Professional licenses and certifications. Current license numbers, issuing boards, and expiration dates. Note active status where licensure lapses are possible.
3. Training certificates. Short courses, technical bootcamps, or employer-sponsored training that built skills directly used in the endeavor. Omit generic or outdated training unrelated to the current plan.
4. A detailed CV organized by skill area. Rather than a chronological résumé, group entries under headings matching the endeavor's technical demands (e.g., "Computational Modeling," "Clinical Trial Design"), with dates retained for each item.
5. Letters from mentors or supervisors. Each should name specific techniques, systems, or methods the petitioner used, not general praise. A letter stating the petitioner "performed finite-element analysis on turbine blade fatigue" carries more evidentiary weight than one calling them "an excellent engineer."

Ordering in the exhibit set

Place degrees and transcripts first, followed by licenses/certifications, training certificates, the CV, and letters last — letters read more clearly once the underlying credentials are established. Label each exhibit (e.g., Exhibit 5: PhD Diploma, University X) and reference exhibit numbers in the petition letter itself.

Documenting a track record of success

Track-record evidence shows that past performance, not just credentials, supports the ability to carry out the proposed endeavor. Common categories include publications and citations, patents, prior project outcomes, awards, performance reviews, and media coverage.

Pulling citation data correctly

If citation counts matter to your record, pull them from Google Scholar or Web of Science on a specific date, then screenshot or export the result. Label the exhibit with that date — e.g., "Exhibit 12: Google Scholar Citation Report, pulled March 3, 2025." Citation counts change constantly, and an undated figure invites an RFE asking for verification.

Other track-record documents

• Patents: include the issued patent or published application plus a one-line note on how it relates to the endeavor.
• Prior project outcomes: technical reports, deployment summaries, or client results showing measurable effect.
• Awards: certificate plus a brief note on selectivity or scope if not self-evident.
• Performance reviews: excerpts relevant to the skills or outcomes tied to the endeavor, not entire multi-year files.
• Media coverage: the article itself, with the petitioner's role highlighted if coverage is about a team or organization.

Labeling exhibits

Give each document an exhibit number and a one-line caption stating what it shows and why it matters — for example, "Exhibit 9: U.S. Patent No. [X], co-invented method for [process] later adopted in [application]." Avoid bare attachments with no caption; officers should not have to infer relevance.

Building the model or plan for future activities

The third factor asks for a document, not just a narrative in your personal statement: a standalone plan showing how you intend to carry out the proposed endeavor. Draft it as a labeled exhibit (e.g., "Exhibit 7: Plan for Proposed Endeavor") of roughly 2–4 pages.

Sections to include

1. Objectives — one or two paragraphs stating what the endeavor aims to achieve.
2. Methodology or approach — the technical, clinical, or business approach you will use, written at a level a non-specialist adjudicator can follow.
3. Timeline with milestones — a table listing phases (e.g., Year 1, Year 2, Year 3) and the concrete milestone expected in each.
4. Resources needed — funding, equipment, collaborators, or institutional access, and whether each is already secured or still being sought.
5. Metrics of success — measurable indicators (publications, patients treated, units deployed, revenue, grant renewals) you will use to assess progress.

Referencing supporting evidence

Within each section, cite the exhibit number of any letter, data set, or agreement that corroborates feasibility — for example, "(see Exhibit 12, Letter of Intent from XYZ Corp.)" next to the resources paragraph. This lets the plan read as grounded in existing commitments rather than speculation, and lets an officer cross-check the claim against the underlying document without searching the full record.```

Showing progress already made or interest from others

The fourth factor asks for proof that the endeavor is already moving, not merely planned. Evidence here shows that people or institutions outside the petitioner have put resources, time, or commitments behind it.

What counts as momentum evidence

• Signed contracts, purchase orders, or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) tied to the endeavor
• Letters of intent from companies, hospitals, universities, or agencies describing specific planned collaboration
• Grant awards or funding commitments, with award letters or notices of grant
• Pilot study or beta-test results, including data summaries or internal reports
• Correspondence with government agencies, regulators, or potential customers discussing the endeavor's implementation
• Invitations to present at conferences, serve on advisory panels, or collaborate on joint projects

Handling sensitive content

Many of these documents contain commercial terms — pricing, equity splits, proprietary specifications — that the petitioner may not want or be permitted to disclose. Redact only the specific figures or clauses that are confidential; do not black out the document's substance, such as the parties involved, the subject matter, or the date. A short cover note on the exhibit (

Assembling the prong-two evidence index

Once the exhibits are gathered, build a one-page worksheet that functions as a map between your evidence and the four Dhanasar factors. This document is for your own quality control — it does not need to be filed, though some petitioners include a version of it as a cover guide for the officer.

Step 1: List every exhibit in filing order

Assign each document an exhibit number matching your filing index (e.g., Exhibit 12). Use the exact title as labeled on the document itself.

Step 2: Tag each exhibit to a factor

Mark which of the four factors — education/skills, track record, plan, or progress/interest — each exhibit supports. Some exhibits legitimately support more than one; list all that apply.

Step 3: Write a one-sentence relevance note

State in plain language why the exhibit matters, tied to the specific endeavor, not a general claim of excellence.

Step 4: Cross-check coverage

Scan the completed index and confirm at least one exhibit appears under each of the four factors. If any factor shows zero entries, return to the gap list from Section 2 before finalizing the petition.

Common mistakes that trigger RFEs on this prong

Several recurring errors prompt officers to issue RFEs specifically on the second prong, even when prong one is well documented.

Reusing prong-one evidence without adaptation. Articles and letters establishing that the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance do not, by themselves, show that the petitioner is positioned to carry it out. If every exhibit in the packet addresses importance and none addresses capability, expect a request for evidence targeting qualifications, track record, or planning.

Generic recommendation letters. A letter praising the petitioner as "brilliant" or "highly skilled" without naming specific techniques, projects, or outcomes tied to the proposed endeavor reads as boilerplate. Letters need concrete ties between credentials and the specific work proposed.

Outdated CVs. A CV that stops at a degree conferred years ago, omits recent positions, or fails to list publications, patents, or projects relevant to the endeavor undercuts the education/skills factor.

Undated metrics. Citation counts, download numbers, or other figures presented without a pull date leave officers unable to verify currency, and some treat undated metrics as unreliable.

Thin plans. A future-activities document that states goals in general terms without milestones, timeline, required resources, or success metrics does not demonstrate a workable plan, which is a distinct requirement from simply describing intentions.