National Interest Waiver RFE · Dhanasar Prong One

USCIS says your proposed endeavor lacks national importance?

A National Interest Waiver RFE may accept that the field is valuable while still concluding that the petition has not shown the prospective national importance of the specific endeavor. The response should focus on the proposed work itself, the scale or broader implications of its expected impact, and objective evidence supporting that impact.

National importance is not the same as an important occupation or industry.

Under Matter of Dhanasar, the first National Interest Waiver prong asks whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The analysis focuses on the endeavor the petitioner actually proposes to undertake, not merely whether the general field is important.

USCIS may therefore acknowledge that artificial intelligence, medicine, cybersecurity, infrastructure, education, finance, energy, manufacturing, or another field has substantial value and still issue an RFE asking why this petitioner’s particular endeavor has prospective impact that rises to the level of national importance.

The central question: What is the petitioner proposing to do, and what evidence demonstrates the prospective impact of that particular work?

Why USCIS may question national importance.

The field is described, but the endeavor is not.

Evidence about a nationally important industry does not necessarily establish what the petitioner will personally do in the United States or what impact that work is expected to produce.

The evidence shows local or employer-specific value only.

Useful work for one employer, customer, laboratory, clinic, or community may still require additional evidence explaining broader implications or prospective impact.

The petition relies mainly on generalized reports.

Government reports, industry publications, market data, or national priorities can provide context, but the response should connect those materials to the petitioner’s defined endeavor.

Projected benefits are asserted without support.

Claims concerning job creation, economic growth, public benefit, scientific advancement, or widespread adoption are stronger when supported by credible plans, records, commitments, contracts, funding, independent evidence, or other corroboration.

Evidence should connect the specific endeavor to prospective impact.

The appropriate evidence depends on the type of endeavor. A research petition may rely on evidence showing how the proposed research addresses an important problem and is positioned for dissemination or adoption. A business or entrepreneurial petition may need credible documentation concerning the market, customers, financing, contracts, scalability, geographic reach, economic effects, or other prospective impact. A professional endeavor may require evidence showing consequences beyond the routine value of performing the occupation.

  • Government or authoritative materials identifying a relevant national problem or priority;
  • Independent evidence connecting the petitioner’s particular work to that problem;
  • Contracts, grants, funding, customer interest, partnership evidence, licenses, or implementation records;
  • Evidence of expected dissemination, adoption, commercialization, replication, or broader use;
  • Data or analysis showing the scale of the problem the endeavor addresses;
  • Evidence that the work has implications beyond one employer or a limited group of customers; and
  • Credible expert or stakeholder analysis explaining the expected prospective impact.
Evidence should not merely prove that the petitioner is accomplished. Prong one principally evaluates the merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor. Evidence of the petitioner’s past record may become especially important under prong two.

Separate substantial merit from national importance.

An endeavor may have substantial merit in business, science, technology, health, education, culture, or another area without automatically having national importance. A well organized response should identify what USCIS accepted, what it disputed, and what additional evidence resolves the actual finding.

Substantial Merit

Why is the proposed work worthwhile or valuable in its relevant area?

National Importance

What is the endeavor’s potential prospective impact, and why is that impact significant at the level required by the NIW framework?

Define the endeavor before trying to prove its importance.

A vague proposed endeavor makes the national importance analysis difficult. If the original petition described only an occupation, broad field, or collection of unrelated future activities, the RFE response should determine whether the record can more precisely explain the work without improperly changing the underlying endeavor.

The response should remain consistent with the petition that was filed. Supplemental evidence can clarify and document the endeavor, but a response should not quietly substitute a materially different project for the one on which the petition was based.

Primary authorities
INA § 203(b)(2)(B)(i); Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016); USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5.

Related National Interest Waiver RFE issues.

NIW Well Positioned RFEEvidence showing the petitioner can credibly advance the proposed endeavor.NIW Balancing Test RFEHow to address whether waiver of the normal job offer process is beneficial on balance.Defining the Proposed EndeavorWhy the specific proposed work must be distinguished from the importance of the field.NIW Recommendation LettersHow expert and stakeholder letters can support the record without substituting for evidence.