National Interest Waiver RFE · Proposed Endeavor
Is the proposed endeavor too broad, vague, or disconnected from the evidence?
The proposed endeavor is the organizing concept for the National Interest Waiver analysis. USCIS evaluates the specific work the petitioner proposes to undertake. A broad occupation, industry, or field may provide context, but it is not a substitute for defining the endeavor itself.
The occupation and the proposed endeavor are not necessarily the same thing.
A person’s occupation might be engineer, physician, researcher, entrepreneur, consultant, professor, or executive. The proposed endeavor should explain what that person proposes to do through the occupation and the prospective impact of that work.
For example, saying that a petitioner intends to “work in artificial intelligence” identifies a field. It does not necessarily explain the particular technology, research, product, application, implementation effort, business activity, or other work the petitioner proposes to advance.
Why an unclear endeavor can affect every NIW prong.
National Importance
USCIS cannot meaningfully evaluate prospective impact if the proposed work has not been defined with sufficient specificity.
Well Positioned
The petitioner’s qualifications and record must be connected to the endeavor actually proposed, not merely to the broader profession.
Balancing
The rationale for waiving the normal job offer process depends in part on how the proposed work will be pursued.
Underlying EB-2 Eligibility
Where relevant, USCIS also evaluates whether the petitioner’s advanced-degree profession or exceptional ability relates appropriately to the proposed endeavor.
A useful endeavor description answers concrete questions.
- What does the petitioner actually propose to do?
- What problem, need, opportunity, or objective does the work address?
- Who or what is expected to benefit from the work?
- How will the endeavor be advanced in practice?
- What is the expected scope, reach, dissemination, adoption, or other prospective impact?
- What evidence shows that the plan is credible?
- How does the petitioner’s past record connect to this future work?
An RFE response should clarify, not quietly replace, the filed endeavor.
Supplemental evidence can explain details, provide updated corroboration, and make the original presentation easier to understand. But if the RFE response introduces materially different work, a new business, a new project, or a fundamentally different future plan, the filing may raise questions about whether eligibility existed when the petition was filed.
The response should therefore compare the RFE with the original petition before drafting a new endeavor statement.
Objective evidence should support the description.
Depending on the endeavor, supporting evidence may include research plans, technical materials, business records, market evidence, grants, contracts, customer or institutional interest, funding, prototypes, implementation records, professional plans, project documentation, publications, or other materials that corroborate what the petitioner proposes to do.
Recommendation letters can help explain the significance or practical context of the endeavor, but they are strongest when they are consistent with independent documentation rather than functioning as the sole evidence that the proposed work exists.