Dhanasar Framework: How USCIS Evaluates EB-2 NIW Petitions

TL;DR

• The Dhanasar framework is the three-prong legal test USCIS uses to evaluate every EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition. It comes from Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), a precedent decision issued on December 27, 2016 that replaced the prior NYSDOT standard.

• The three prongs are: (1) the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.

• All three prongs must be satisfied. Before reaching any of them, the petitioner must also establish basic EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional or a person of exceptional ability.

• The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that each prong is met.

• A January 15, 2025 USCIS Policy Alert (PA-2025-03) updated the USCIS Policy Manual with the most detailed adjudication guidance ever issued on how officers apply each prong in practice. Petitions filed on or after January 15, 2025 are adjudicated under this updated guidance.

What Is the Dhanasar Framework?

The Dhanasar framework is the controlling legal standard for EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions in the United States. It was established by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) of USCIS in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), a precedent decision issued on December 27, 2016. 

The petitioner in that case was a researcher and educator in aerospace engineering who had filed an immigrant visa petition seeking EB-2 classification without a job offer, requesting a waiver of the labor certification requirement on the basis of national interest.

The AAO used that case to vacate the prior controlling standard, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which had governed NIW adjudications for nearly twenty years. 

The AAO concluded that NYSDOT had become confusing, inconsistently applied, and unnecessarily restrictive, particularly for self-petitioners, entrepreneurs, and those whose work had localized or non-traditional impacts. The new framework was designed to provide greater clarity, apply more flexibly across a wider range of circumstances, and better advance the purpose of the discretionary waiver provision.

Under the Dhanasar framework, a petitioner must demonstrate all three of the following:

1. The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.

2. The petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

3. On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.

Why Dhanasar Replaced NYSDOT

Understanding what Dhanasar changed helps explain how adjudicators apply it today.

Under the NYSDOT standard, petitioners had to show that: 

1. Their employment was in an area of substantial intrinsic merit

2. The proposed benefit would be national in scope

3. The national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required. 

Effectively, the petitioner would need to show they would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications.

The AAO identified three core problems with that framework:

• The "intrinsic" requirement was subjective and unhelpful. The word "intrinsic" in the first prong invited unnecessary subjective evaluation without contributing meaningfully to the analysis.

• The "national in scope" requirement was interpreted too narrowly. Adjudicators had been applying this prong to focus heavily on the geographic breadth of the benefit, disqualifying work that was locally or regionally focused even when it addressed broader national concerns or could serve as a replicable model.

• The third prong required comparison to U.S. workers, which was not required by statute. NYSDOT's third prong was variously interpreted as requiring a showing that the national interest would be harmed without the waiver, or that the petitioner was superior to available U.S. workers. Neither requirement was grounded in the statutory language. This made the third prong particularly punishing for entrepreneurs and the self-employed, who could not sponsor themselves through a labor certification in the first place.

Dhanasar removed all three of these obstacles. "National importance" replaced "national in scope," removing the geographic overemphasis. "Substantial merit" replaced "substantial intrinsic merit," removing unnecessary subjectivity. The third prong became a balancing test without any requirement to show harm to the national interest or comparison to U.S. workers.

Before the Three Prongs: Establishing EB-2 Eligibility

Per the January 2025 USCIS Policy Alert and the updated Policy Manual (Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5), USCIS evaluates EB-2 eligibility as a threshold matter before reaching the three Dhanasar prongs. A petitioner must qualify for the underlying EB-2 category as either an advanced degree professional or a person of exceptional ability.

• Advanced degree professional: The petitioner holds a U.S. advanced degree (master's or higher), a foreign equivalent, or a U.S. bachelor's degree plus at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. The experience must be gained after the degree was awarded and must be directly related to the specialty field.

• Person of exceptional ability: The petitioner demonstrates exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business through at least three of six regulatory criteria: an academic record showing a degree relating to the area of exceptional ability; a letter showing at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation; a professional license or certification; evidence of a salary demonstrating exceptional ability; membership in professional associations; or recognition for achievements from peers, government entities, or professional organizations.

The January 2025 update also clarified that the intended occupation must be a genuine profession requiring at least a U.S. bachelor's degree as a minimum entry requirement. 

A petitioner with a Ph.D. in engineering who proposes to open a bakery, for example, would not qualify as an advanced degree professional for this purpose, because bakery operation is not a profession normally requiring a degree.

The petitioner must clearly describe both the occupation through which they plan to advance their work and the specific proposed endeavor. As the USCIS Policy Manual notes, citing the original Dhanasar decision, the occupation is broader than the endeavor: in the Dhanasar case itself, the occupation was "engineer" while the specific proposed endeavor was "research and development relating to air and space propulsion systems."

Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance

The first prong asks whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. These are two distinct requirements that must both be addressed.

Substantial merit refers to the inherent value and importance of the work in its field. Dhanasar recognized that merit may exist in many forms: scientific, technological, health-related, cultural, educational, economic, and entrepreneurial. Immediate or quantifiable economic impact is not required. The AAO in Dhanasar explicitly stated that evidence of the potential to create significant impact may be favorable but is not required. An endeavor's merit may be established without demonstrating that it has already generated measurable outcomes.

National importance refers to the broader implications of the endeavor for the United States. This is where Dhanasar made its most significant departure from NYSDOT. The January 2025 Policy Manual update provides detailed guidance on what satisfies this element and what does not.

What has been found to satisfy national importance, per the updated USCIS guidance and practitioner experience:

• Research in critical and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, quantum computing, semiconductor development, and clean energy

• Public health breakthroughs and clinical innovations with broad application

• Significant job creation in economically depressed areas

• Innovations with demonstrable broader implications for an industry or field

• Endeavors aligned with documented national priorities, federal initiatives, or government agency strategic plans

• Work that other nations are advancing competitively and that has implications for U.S. strategic interests

What generally does not satisfy national importance, per the updated USCIS guidance:

• Classroom teaching alone, even in STEM subjects, absent additional evidence of broader impact

• Consulting for others who work in a nationally important field

• Operating a standard commercial business (a restaurant, car dealership, or retail store) unless extraordinary circumstances are shown

• General descriptions of an important field without connecting the specific endeavor to national priorities

Dhanasar also confirmed that an endeavor may be nationally important even if its focus is regional or local, so long as its inherent value to the nation is demonstrated. The key is the nature and potential impact of the work, not its geographic scope.

Prong 2: Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor

The second prong shifts focus from the endeavor to the petitioner. It asks whether this particular individual, given their qualifications and record, is well positioned to actually advance the proposed work in the United States.

The January 2025 USCIS Policy Manual update provided the most comprehensive enumeration of relevant evidence types ever issued for this prong, listing more than fifteen categories of supporting material that may be relevant. 

These include:

• Education, skills, and knowledge relevant to the proposed endeavor

• Record of success in prior positions, projects, or research

• Progress made toward the proposed endeavor (publications, patents, grants, contracts, deployed products, clinical outcomes)

• Interest in the work from relevant stakeholders (government agencies, industry, academic institutions)

• Letters from individuals with direct knowledge of the petitioner's work, describing what the petitioner has actually contributed and why it matters

• Invitations, grants, or funding from prestigious organizations

• Proof of participation in competitive programs (accelerators, fellowship programs, government research grants)

• Evidence of citations, adoption, or reliance by others in the field

Dhanasar recognized that some innovative endeavors, including those of highly capable individuals, may not yet have an extensive track record, particularly in emerging fields. 

The AAO noted that "many innovations and entrepreneurial endeavors may ultimately fail, in whole or in part, despite an intelligent plan and competent execution." Petitioners are not required to prove that their proposed endeavor will succeed, only that they are genuinely positioned to advance it.

For the second prong, the quality of evidence matters more than the category. A letter from a government official, industry leader, or senior academic who can speak concretely to what the petitioner has already contributed and why their continued work serves the national interest carries more weight than a general endorsement. 

The 2025 guidance notes that letters from individuals with direct working knowledge of the petitioner are particularly strong evidence for this prong because they can provide firsthand accounts of actual contributions.

Prong 3: Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements

The third prong is a balancing test. It asks whether, given everything established by prongs one and two, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. This does not require showing that the national interest would be harmed without the waiver, and it does not require any comparison to U.S. workers.

Per the USCIS Policy Manual and the original Dhanasar decision, petitioners may submit evidence addressing one or more of the following factors to support the third prong:

• Impracticality of labor certification. This applies when the nature of the petitioner's work makes obtaining a labor certification difficult, counterproductive, or inapplicable. Entrepreneurs who are self-employed, for example, cannot sponsor themselves through PERM. Researchers whose work occurs across multiple institutions or outside the framework of a traditional employer-employee relationship similarly face structural barriers to conventional labor certification.

• Benefit to the U.S. even assuming other qualified workers are available. This factor acknowledges that the uniqueness of the petitioner's specific contributions may justify a waiver even where qualified U.S. workers in the general field exist. A petitioner with a specific combination of expertise, institutional relationships, and ongoing work may offer something that a newly recruited U.S. worker could not replicate without significant delay.

• Urgency of the national interest. When the petitioner's contributions address a time-sensitive public health, safety, security, or economic concern, delaying those contributions through the PERM process may itself be contrary to the national interest.

• Letters from U.S. government agencies. Per the 2025 USCIS Policy Alert, letters from U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities that explicitly explain why the petitioner's work is urgently needed, and why a waiver would serve the agency's mission, carry particularly strong weight under the third prong. Such letters can be close to decisive in the adjudicator's balancing analysis.

Special Considerations for Entrepreneurs and Startup Founders

The Dhanasar decision explicitly recognized that the NIW category should be more accessible to entrepreneurs and the self-employed, correcting a known deficiency of NYSDOT. 

The January 2025 Policy Alert expanded on this, with specific evidentiary guidance for entrepreneurs.

For founders and startup operators, the strongest evidence of prong two includes ownership interest combined with a central and active role in the enterprise, documented through evidence such as:

• Investment received from external investors (venture capital, angel investment, institutional grants)

• Acceptance into a competitive accelerator or incubator program

• Revenue growth and customer or user metrics demonstrating market traction

• Job creation within the U.S., including direct employment at the startup

• Patents, proprietary technology, or products with documented adoption

The January 2025 update also warned that broad assertions about general economic benefits ("the company creates jobs and contributes to the economy") are not sufficient to establish national importance under prong one. The specific startup's documented impact and the direct connection between the petitioner's role and that impact must be established with evidence.

How Dhanasar Differs from the EB-1A Extraordinary Ability Standard

Dhanasar and EB-1A are frequently compared because both allow self-petitioning and both assess professional achievement. The standards differ in meaningful ways.

• EB-1A requires sustained national or international acclaim and asks whether the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field. It measures achievement that has already been recognized by others. The evidentiary framework is specific: major one-time achievement or evidence satisfying at least three of ten regulatory criteria, followed by a final merits determination.

• Dhanasar requires positioning and benefit to the U.S. under a balancing test. It asks whether this person is genuinely able to advance this particular endeavor and whether a waiver serves the national interest. It does not ask whether the petitioner has achieved universal recognition in their field. A researcher who is deeply specialized and well positioned in a critical area, but who has not yet achieved broad citation prominence, may qualify under Dhanasar but not EB-1A.

The two pathways are not mutually exclusive. Some petitioners file both EB-1A and EB-2 NIW petitions concurrently, treating them as parallel tracks to permanent residence.

Common Reasons for RFEs Under the Dhanasar Framework

Prong 1 failures

The proposed endeavor is described at the field level rather than the specific work level. The connection between the petitioner's specific research, product, or project and a recognized national priority is asserted but not documented. The endeavor falls into a category (routine business, standard classroom instruction) that USCIS guidance explicitly identifies as insufficient.

Prong 2 failures

The petitioner's qualifications are impressive on paper but not connected to the specific proposed endeavor. Letters of support are generic endorsements rather than concrete descriptions of what the petitioner has actually done and why it matters. The prior record of achievement is strong in a different field or at a different stage than the proposed U.S. work.

Prong 3 failures

The petition addresses prongs one and two well but offers little analysis of why waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements specifically benefits the United States. The petition relies on the strength of prongs one and two without building a distinct third-prong argument.

Threshold failures

The intended occupation does not qualify as a profession requiring a bachelor's degree for entry. The petitioner's advanced degree or exceptional ability credentials are not clearly established before reaching the Dhanasar analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Dhanasar framework?

The Dhanasar framework is the three-prong test USCIS uses to evaluate EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions. It was established by the AAO in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), replacing the prior NYSDOT standard. 

The three prongs ask whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance it, and whether waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements benefits the United States overall.

What did Dhanasar change from the prior NYSDOT standard?

Dhanasar replaced three elements of NYSDOT that had caused confusion and inconsistency. "National importance" replaced "national in scope," removing the overemphasis on geographic breadth. "Substantial merit" replaced "substantial intrinsic merit," removing unnecessary subjectivity. The third prong became a balancing test that no longer requires showing harm to the national interest or comparison to available U.S. workers.

Do I need to meet all three Dhanasar prongs?

Yes. All three prongs must be satisfied for an NIW petition to be approved. Additionally, the petitioner must first establish basic EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional or person of exceptional ability before the Dhanasar analysis begins.

What standard of proof applies to Dhanasar petitions?

Preponderance of the evidence. This means it must be more likely than not (over 50%) that each prong is met. USCIS considers both the quantity and quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence submitted.

Can entrepreneurs or startup founders qualify under Dhanasar?

Yes. One of the explicit goals of Dhanasar was to make the NIW more accessible to entrepreneurs and the self-employed, correcting known deficiencies of NYSDOT. 

The January 2025 USCIS Policy Alert expanded the guidance for entrepreneurs specifically, recognizing that ownership plus a central active role, combined with documented evidence of investment, accelerator participation, revenue, or job creation, can satisfy the second prong. General economic assertions are not sufficient; the specific startup's documented impact must be connected to the petitioner's role.

What changed with the January 2025 USCIS Policy Alert?

The January 15, 2025 Policy Alert (PA-2025-03) updated the USCIS Policy Manual with the most detailed adjudication guidance ever issued for EB-2 NIW petitions. 

It clarified the threshold EB-2 eligibility analysis, provided more than fifteen specific evidence types for prong two, reinforced that STEM researchers in critical technologies receive favorable consideration under prong three, and confirmed that letters from U.S. government agencies can carry significant weight in the third-prong balancing analysis. 

The alert also clarified how the occupation and proposed endeavor must be described, and confirmed the ordering: EB-2 eligibility is evaluated first, then the three Dhanasar prongs. Petitions filed on or after January 15, 2025 are adjudicated under this updated guidance.

Does the proposed endeavor need to already be successful?

No. Dhanasar explicitly acknowledged that many valuable endeavors, particularly innovative or entrepreneurial ones, may ultimately fail despite sound planning. Petitioners are not required to prove that the endeavor will succeed. 

They must show that it has substantial merit and national importance, and that the petitioner is genuinely positioned to advance it. Evidence of progress and early indicators of success strengthen the case, but the absence of a completed track record is not disqualifying.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration requirements and USCIS guidance change frequently. For guidance specific to your situation, consult a licensed immigration attorney.