A National Interest Waiver is judged not by a criteria count but by the three prongs of Matter of Dhanasar: (1) substantial merit and national importance, (2) you are well positioned to advance the endeavor, (3) on balance it benefits the US to waive the job offer and labor certification. Answer the questions per prong and we show where it is weak. Guidance, not legal advice.
The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit AND national importance.
Does your endeavor have substantial merit (in business, science, technology, health, education, culture or similar)?
Dhanasar reads merit broadly - it need not be economic - but the endeavor must have real, demonstrable value, not just personal benefit.
Have you defined a specific proposed endeavor (a concrete focus), not just your general occupation or field?
USCIS evaluates a specific endeavor, not the whole occupation. A vague "I am a good engineer" framing fails prong 1 - you must describe what exactly you will do.
Does the endeavor have national importance - broader implications for a field, region or the country (not just a local employer)?
National importance turns on the potential prospective impact - the work should matter beyond a single workplace or locality. Purely local benefit is the most common prong-1 failure.
Can you evidence the importance (market/industry data, adoption potential, government priorities, letters from independent experts)?
Assertions are not enough - back national importance with objective evidence and independent corroboration, the same way strong petitions do.
Your record, skills, plan and traction show you are well positioned to advance it.
Do you have a record of success or progress in this or a related area (results, adoption, recognition)?
Dhanasar weighs your degree of progress toward the endeavor - a track record of past success is a core positioning factor.
Do your education, skills and knowledge match what the endeavor requires?
Your qualifications must fit the specific endeavor - relevant degrees, expertise and demonstrated skills are explicit Dhanasar positioning factors.
Do you have a concrete plan (a model or roadmap of the steps you will take to advance the endeavor)?
A credible plan of future activities - what you will do and how - is one of the Dhanasar positioning factors. A clear NIW business/endeavor plan addresses it directly.
Is there interest from relevant parties (users, investors, employers, institutions) in your work going forward?
Interest from potential customers, users, investors or other stakeholders is a named Dhanasar factor - it shows the endeavor is likely to move forward, not stay on paper.
On balance it benefits the US to waive the job offer and labor certification.
Would it be impractical for you to obtain a job offer or go through labor certification (PERM) for this endeavor?
Dhanasar asks whether, given the nature of the endeavor, it would be impractical to secure a job offer or PERM - e.g. self-employment, entrepreneurship, or a mobile/independent role.
Even if others could be found via labor certification, would the US still benefit from your specific contributions?
The third prong recognizes that the US may benefit from a particular individual's contributions even if other qualified workers are available - the benefit can outweigh the labor-certification protection.
Is there an urgency or national need (a priority field, shortage, time-sensitive opportunity) that supports waiving the process?
Urgency and national need are part of the balancing test - a pressing need strengthens the case that the labor-certification step should be waived rather than required.
Answer all questions (0/11)
EB-2 NIW is judged by Matter of Dhanasar (three prongs), not a criteria count. This is a self-check, not a USCIS decision or legal advice.
EB-2 NIW is not judged by how many criteria you close - that is what fundamentally separates it from EB-1A and O-1. Matter of Dhanasar set three prongs, and all three must be met rather than a majority.
First: the work has substantial merit and national importance. National is the operative word - a benefit to one employer or one region does not meet it. Second: you are well positioned to advance it - here the record and the realism of the plan matter, not extraordinary acclaim. Third: on balance it benefits the United States to waive the job-offer and labour-certification requirements.
The check takes each prong separately and shows what usually establishes it, because the evidence for the three prongs is different and mixing them is the standard mistake.
| Stage | Typically | Note |
|---|---|---|
| EB-1A / EB-2 NIW: I-140 with premium processing | about 3 weeks | There is an observation of I-140 approval without an RFE in about 3 weeks under premium processing. |
| EB-1A / EB-2 NIW: preparing for I-485 after I-140 approval | a couple of months | After I-140 approval, gathering documents for I-485 can take several months, especially if civil documents need to be obtained and translated. |
| EB-1A / EB-2 NIW: I-485 after I-140 approval | 9-11 months | The discussion uses an expected wait of about 9-10 months after I-140 approval; it also mentions an actual I-485 wait of about 10 months against a field office estimate of about 11 months. |
Misconception: If the required number of criteria is counted for EB-1A or O-1, the case is almost required to be approved; or the opposite misconception: Final Merits is an arbitrary second denial that USCIS can use to wipe out any counted criteria without much logic.
In reality: For EB-1A, after the formal criteria review, USCIS does conduct a final assessment of the totality of the evidence: Final Merits. Meeting 3+ criteria allows the case to move to this assessment, but it does not by itself guarantee approval. At the Final Merits stage, the officer looks at whether the materials as a whole prove sustained acclaim, a high level of recognition, and membership in the small percentage of specialists at the very top of the field. At the same time, a denial should not simply recount criteria that were already credited or express unsupported disagreement. It must explain why the evidence, taken together, is insufficient. For O-1, the logic is similar in substance: USCIS looks not only at the formal items, but also at the overall level of extraordinary ability, although the terminology and standard differ from EB-1A. For EB-2 NIW, the issue is structured differently: the key elements are advanced degree or exceptional ability and the national importance test, not EB-1A Final Merits.
Myth: Working in an industry that is critically important to the government, by itself, almost guarantees approval of an NIW or another immigrant petition.
In reality: The importance of the industry helps only as context. It is still necessary to separately prove the applicant's specific contribution, the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and the applicant's ability to carry it out.
Myth: It is enough to simply mention judging, peer review, or participation in evaluating others' work, and this will automatically strengthen EB-2 NIW.
In reality: This evidence must be presented in the context of the category requirements and its significance must be explained. For NIW, it is not always central and may be weak if it is not connected to national importance, proposed endeavor, and the applicant's role.
Myth: If EB-1A/NIW is not approved, the applicant can easily switch to asylum as a backup option.
In reality: Asylum is a separate process with its own strict grounds: persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground. It is not a universal substitute for an employment-based or immigrant petition and can have serious consequences for the overall strategy.
EB-2 NIW · engineering · outcome not stated
An applicant with education equivalent to U.S. bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering is assessing whether he meets the basic requirements of the category.
What they did: Had a foreign degree evaluation done and received confirmation of equivalence to U.S. degrees.
EB-2 NIW · nuclear engineering · outcome not stated
An engineering specialist said he cannot work in his main field in the United States without citizenship or permanent residency because of industry access restrictions.
What they did: Planned to use the inability to work in the specialty and the public importance of the field as part of the argument for immigration status.
EB-2 NIW · business · outcome not stated
The applicant is considering a strategy to strengthen the case by having a job offer or an already launched business in the United States.
What they did: He is gathering information on how an offer or an existing business can support the argument for national importance and the practical viability of the project.
Distilled from the public community chats, anonymised; corpus as of June 2026. These are participants' observations, not legal advice and not USCIS statistics.
Related articles