EB-2 NIW and the Visa Process
NIW full guide - NIW mistakes - Visa bulletin - O-1 Petitioner - Success stories - Filing fee payment
Quotes from Officers in RFEs on EB-2 NIW
Analysis of real RFEs (Request for Evidence) for EB-2 NIW petitions. Each quote is the exact wording of a USCIS officer, anonymized to protect privacy. For each quote — a translation into English and a plain-language explanation.
Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance
According to USCIS statistics for 2025, about 65% of EB-2 NIW petitions are approved without an RFE. Of those who receive an RFE, roughly 70% of requests concern Prong 1 (national importance) and Prong 3 (waiver justified). The average cost to prepare a response to an RFE with an attorney is $3,000–$5,000 USD.
Main article on the topic: EB-2 NIW full guide
In the 2024–2025 fiscal year USCIS approved about 65% of EB-2 NIW petitions. The main reason for denials is Prong 1 (national importance): officers accept substantial merit but reject national importance in roughly 70% of NIW RFEs.
The most problematic part of NIW. In the majority of RFEs officers accept substantial merit but reject national importance. Here’s why:
RFE: Industry importance is not the same as importance of your specific endeavor
In one RFE for an exercise physiologist the officer clearly stated the main mistake — confusing the importance of the industry with the importance of the petitioner’s endeavor:
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead USCIS must focus on the ‘specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.’”
Translation: “When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead USCIS must focus on the ‘specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.’”
What this means: You may work in the most important industry in the world (healthcare, national security, AI) — but that does not automatically make YOUR specific work nationally important. The officer asks not “is your profession important?” but “is THIS SPECIFIC THING YOU WILL DO nationally important?”
RFE: articles about the industry with no link to your endeavor are “not probative”
In the same RFE the officer explained why submitted articles and reports didn’t help:
Detailed breakdown
“The articles and reports may establish the overall importance of various topics in general, but the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, USCIS focuses on the ‘specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.’”
And further:
“The articles do not discuss any details relating to the specific endeavor and its impact other than that it is in the broader field. Reliance on background information and statistics concerning various topics is generally not probative. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76.”
Translation: “The articles do not discuss any details relating to the specific endeavor and its impact other than that it is in the broader field. Reliance on background information and statistics concerning various topics is generally not probative.”
What this means: Submitted a Forbes article about the importance of AI? Or a McKinsey report about growth in your industry? If those articles don’t speak SPECIFICALLY about what YOU do — they’re useless. The officer directly cites Matter of Chawathe — the standard on probative value of evidence.
RFE: “merely working in an important field is insufficient”
“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
Translation: “Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
What this means: One line that kills 90% of weak NIW petitions. “I work in healthcare” = important field. But “I work in healthcare” != nationally important endeavor. You must show WHAT EXACTLY you do and why THAT has broader implications.
RFE: describing routine occupational duties is not an endeavor
“The petitioner’s objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of [the profession] rather than establishing that the specific proposed endeavor has national importance. In determining national importance, the analysis focuses on what the petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification.”
Translation: “The petitioner’s objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of [the profession] rather than establishing that the specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”
What this means: If your cover letter reads like a job description (“I will consult clients, develop programs, perform assessments…”) — that’s a description of the PROFESSION, not an endeavor. The endeavor must be more specific: “I will implement method X to solve problem Y, which will affect Z.”
RFE: services for specific clients are not nationally important
“Ultimately, the issue is not whether an employer or client would benefit from the endeavor, but whether the endeavor has broad implications with substantial positive effects. Individually tailored services help serve specific needs of an employer or client, but by nature, they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of companies can readily adopt.”
Translation: “Ultimately, the issue is not whether an employer or client would benefit from the endeavor, but whether the endeavor has broad implications with substantial positive effects. Individually tailored services help serve specific needs of an employer or client, but by nature, they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of companies can readily adopt.”
What this means: If you are a consultant, therapist, coach, designer — and your work = “I help individual clients” — that is NOT nationally important. You must show that your approach/method/technology can be SCALED beyond a single client. “I developed a method used by 50 clinics” = broader implications. “I work with clients” = no.
RFE: analogy to a classroom teacher — applied directly to the case
“In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher’s proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, USCIS finds that the petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond [the workplace] to impact the industry or field more broadly.”
Translation: “In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher’s proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, USCIS finds that the petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond the workplace to impact the industry or field more broadly.”
What this means: Officers use the teacher example from Dhanasar as a template for denials. If your activity “does not extend beyond the workplace” — USCIS treats you like a classroom teacher. It doesn’t matter how well you perform — the question is SCALE of impact.
Prong 3: Beneficial to Waive
Second most frequent failure after Prong 1. The officer explains why workforce shortage doesn’t help:
RFE: workforce shortage is an argument FOR PERM, not for a waiver
“An occupational shortage does not eliminate the benefits of a process designed to protect U.S. workers and therefore does not tilt the balancing test in the petitioner’s favor. The U.S. Department of Labor already addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process, and through its Schedule A regulations.”
Translation: “An occupational shortage does not eliminate the benefits of a process designed to protect U.S. workers and therefore does not tilt the balancing test in the petitioner’s favor. The U.S. Department of Labor already addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process, and through its Schedule A regulations.”
What this means: If you write “there is a shortage in my profession” — the officer replies: “That’s what PERM is for. If there’s a shortage, find an employer and they can file PERM on your behalf. That is the purpose of that process. Why do you need a waiver?” Workforce shortage is an argument AGAINST the waiver, not for it.
RFE: not shown that PERM is impractical for you
“The petitioner failed to submit evidence that her knowledge or skills are not easily articulated in a labor certification.”
Translation: “The petitioner failed to submit evidence that her knowledge or skills are not easily articulated in a labor certification.”
What this means: One argument for Prong 3 is that PERM cannot adequately describe your unique qualifications because PERM allows only minimum requirements for the position, while your skills far exceed those minimums. If you didn’t make this argument, the officer notes this gap.
RFE: not shown that the U.S. would benefit from you even if other candidates were available
“The petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, overall, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.”
Translation: “The petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, overall, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.”
What this means: The hardest argument for Prong 3: “Yes, there may be Americans who can do my job. But MY specific contribution is so unique that the U.S. would still benefit by having ME.” Without this, Prong 3 fails.
What the officer wants to see (from the requested evidence list)
At the end of the RFE the officer listed what must be provided. This is the checklist for Prong 1 and Prong 3:
For Prong 1 (National Importance):
- A detailed description of the proposed activity and WHY it has national importance
- Documentary evidence supporting the petitioner’s assertions about national importance. Evidence should demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor:
- Has national or global impact in a specific area
- Has significant potential to hire U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects (especially in economically depressed areas)
- Will broadly improve public welfare, cultural or artistic enrichment
- Addresses an issue identified by a government body as having national importance or is part of national initiatives
For Prong 3 (Beneficial to Waive):
USCIS may evaluate the following factors:
- Impracticality of obtaining labor certification given the nature of the qualifications or activity
- Benefit to the U.S. from the beneficiary’s contributions even if other qualified U.S. workers are available
- Sufficient urgency of national interest to justify waiving PERM
- Potential for job creation
- Whether the beneficiary is self-employed (which generally does not negatively affect U.S. workers)
Case 2: Pilot (Nebraska Service Center)
This RFE is especially valuable — the officer rejected ALL three prongs and laid out in detail what is needed for each. It is, in effect, a USCIS instruction on “how to properly file NIW.” The petitioner submitted 15+ articles about pilot shortages, 8 recommendation letters, pilot licenses — and still received an RFE on all three prongs.
RFE: “working as a pilot” is not an endeavor
“The beneficiary’s proposed endeavor is to work as an airline pilot. When the evidence is silent about the details of the proposed endeavor, is vague rather than specific, or describes the field, USCIS cannot meaningfully discuss the endeavor.”
Translation: “The beneficiary’s proposed endeavor is to work as an airline pilot. When the evidence is silent about the details of the proposed endeavor, is vague rather than specific, or describes the field, USCIS cannot meaningfully discuss the endeavor.”
What this means: “To work as a pilot” is a profession, not an endeavor. The officer cannot even START analysis if the endeavor is not described specifically. “I will fly planes” = denial. You need: “I will implement advanced flight safety practices for [specific aircraft types] for [specific airline/segment], improving safety on [specific route/region].”
RFE: shortage of specialists is an argument FOR PERM, not for waiver
This is the key quote from this RFE — perhaps the most important for everyone filing NIW:
“The fact that there is shortage of pilots in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important by default. If it is your contention that the proposed endeavor has national importance because of the numerous problems outlined, you must establish precisely how the proposed endeavor will impact those issues on a commensurately meaningful level.”
Translation: “The fact that there is shortage of pilots in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important by default. If it is your contention that the proposed endeavor has national importance because of the numerous problems outlined, you must establish precisely how the proposed endeavor will impact those issues on a commensurately meaningful level.”
What this means: Fifteen articles about pilot shortages didn’t help. The officer says: “Yes, pilots are in shortage. So what? How will YOUR ARRIVAL solve that problem at the national level? You are one person — how will you affect a nationwide shortage?” You must show not “the problem exists” but “here is how MY specific activity uniquely addresses part of this problem.”
And further:
“The labor certification process was established to handle shortages in the domestic labor supply. Thus, it does not seem to be impractical for the petitioner to participate in the process of securing a job offer and having an employer obtain a labor certification on his behalf.”
Translation: “The labor certification process was established to handle shortages in the domestic labor supply. Thus, it does not seem to be impractical for the petitioner to participate in the process of securing a job offer and having an employer obtain a labor certification on his behalf.”
What this means: The officer plainly states: “PERM EXISTS FOR THIS — find an airline to hire you and they can file PERM. Why do you need a waiver?” This argument kills cases built on shortage-of-workers claims.
RFE: describing the field instead of a concrete plan — “cannot determine”
The officer listed what MUST be in the description of the endeavor:
“As a whole, the record lacks a detailed description of the proposed endeavor that clearly describes the undertaking or venture to be accomplished via pertinent details such as (but not limited to) what projects you will be engaging in, what sources of funding you will be relying upon (both in terms of finances and resources), what parties have expressed interest in said projects, what work you have already completed toward the projects in question, and/or what timeline you intend to be working in accordance with.”
Translation: “Overall, the record lacks a detailed description of the proposed endeavor that clearly describes the undertaking or venture to be accomplished via pertinent details such as: what projects you will be engaging in, what sources of funding you will rely upon (both finances and resources), what parties have expressed interest in said projects, what work you have already completed toward the projects in question, and/or what timeline you intend to work in accordance with.”
And the key:
“When such information is vague, simply describes the field of study, or mostly refers to past work, USCIS cannot determine whether or not a proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Translation: “When such information is vague, simply describes the field of study, or mostly refers to past work, USCIS cannot determine whether or not a proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
What this means: Here is the officer’s checklist — what MUST be in the endeavor description:
- Which SPECIFIC projects
- What funding/resources
- Who has EXPRESSED INTEREST (clients, investors, employers)
- What you HAVE ALREADY DONE toward them
- What TIMELINES
Without these 5 items = “USCIS cannot determine” = denial.
RFE: NIW is not for job searching
One of the harshest wordings in this RFE:
“The fact that you are trying to come to the United States to conduct a job search, establish a company, or use his own money (or: use his own funds as financial support) shows that there are not potential customers or investors interested in hiring the beneficiary at the time of filing the petition. The NIW waiver is not intended to grant individuals time to conduct a job search. It is meant for those who stand out among their peers, and are already being sought out for their particular expertise.”
Translation: “The fact that you are trying to come to the United States to conduct a job search, establish a company, or use your own funds as financial support shows that there are no potential customers or investors interested in hiring the beneficiary at the time of filing the petition. The NIW waiver is not intended to grant individuals time to conduct a job search. It is meant for those who stand out among their peers, and are already being sought out for their particular expertise.”
What this means: NIW is for those WHO ARE ALREADY BEING SOUGHT. Not for those who are seeking. If, at filing, you have no evidence that anyone in the U.S. is interested in your work (correspondence with employers, offers, contracts, investments) — the officer views this as “coming to look for a job.” That kills Prong 2.
RFE: letters from acquaintances are insufficient — you must be known BEYOND your circle
“USCIS notes that the recommendation letters are from individuals who are professionally acquainted to the beneficiary. While it is true that the authors of these letters work in the same field, the record at present, does not persuasively establish that the beneficiary has had a substantial impact in the field of endeavor. It would be generally expected that someone who has had such a substantial impact on the field that the granting of a national interest waiver would be warranted, would be known outside the circle of his personal acquaintances.”
Translation: “USCIS notes that the recommendation letters are from individuals who are professionally acquainted to the beneficiary. While it is true that the authors of these letters work in the same field, the record at present does not persuasively establish that the beneficiary has had a substantial impact in the field of endeavor. It would be generally expected that someone who has had such a substantial impact on the field that the granting of a national interest waiver would be warranted, would be known outside the circle of his personal acquaintances.”
What this means: Eight recommendation letters — all from acquaintances. The officer says: “If you truly have that level of impact, people who do NOT personally know you should know your work.” This argues for independent recommendation letters — from experts who know your work through publications, conferences, or reputation rather than personal ties.
RFE: full checklist from the officer — what to submit for Prong 2
The officer listed ALL types of evidence for being “well positioned”:
A. Education, skills, knowledge, record of success:
- Degrees, certificates, licenses
- Patents, trademarks, copyrights
- Expert letters describing achievements + specific examples + expert CV
- Publications and media coverage of achievements
- Strong citation history
- Evidence of impact of your work on the field
- Leading/critical/indispensable role in the endeavor
- Evidence that prior inventions/innovations are used by others
B. Model or plan for future activities:
- Plan to continue work in the U.S.
- Detailed business plan (if applicable)
- Correspondence with potential employers/clients
- Plans for financial support
C. Progress towards achieving the endeavor:
- Grants (amounts and terms)
- Contracts and agreements
- Achievements upon which the plan will build
- Leading/critical role in the endeavor
Detailed breakdown
D. Interest of potential customers, users, investors:
- Letters from government agencies
- Investments from VCs, angel investors, accelerators
- Grants from federal/state/local bodies
- Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
- Licensing documents for technologies
- Patents with documentation of their significance
Case 3: Accountant/Auditor (Texas Service Center)
An accountant and auditor in finance. Advanced degree confirmed (Master’s). Prong 2 (well positioned) — approved. Prong 1 (national importance) and Prong 3 (beneficial to waive) — NOT. This case shows typical problems for consultants, accountants and other “service” professions.
RFE: industry articles not tied to your specific endeavor
The petitioner submitted articles about the coal industry’s economic impact, a review of U.S. business bankruptcies during COVID-19, articles on shortages of financial advisors. The officer rejected:
“You submitted a brief from counsel, several articles and reports regarding the coal industry in the United States and its financial impact on the economy, an article titled ‘Review of U.S. Business Bankruptcies During the Covid-19 Pandemic’, as well as articles providing challenges of shortages in financial advisors, a business plan that includes personal background. However, this is insufficient.”
Translation: “You submitted a brief from counsel, several articles and reports regarding the coal industry in the United States and its financial impact on the economy, an article titled ‘Review of U.S. Business Bankruptcies During the Covid-19 Pandemic’, as well as articles providing challenges of shortages in financial advisors, a business plan that includes personal background. However, this is insufficient.”
What this means: Articles about industry problems + articles about shortages + a business plan = denial. Why? Because none of these articles address the PETITIONER’S SPECIFIC activity. “The economy has problems” + “I am an accountant” ≠ “my specific activity is nationally important.”
RFE: working with clients “does not extend beyond clients” — not nationally important
“USCIS finds that the petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and would impact the industry or field more broadly.”
Translation: “USCIS finds that the petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and would impact the industry or field more broadly.”
What this means: This is a key problem for all consultants, accountants, financial advisors, therapists, trainers, designers — anyone who works with specific clients. “I help my clients” = not nationally important. You must show: “My METHOD/APPROACH/TECHNOLOGY can be scaled and used beyond my specific clients.”
RFE: “I plan to continue working in my profession” is not an argument for Prong 3
“The petitioner indicated she intends to pursue her proposed endeavor through employment. However, she did not explain or submit the evidence to establish that a U.S. employer cannot offer her a job through a labor certification process. She did not submit any evidence showing that the national interest in her contributions is sufficiently urgent to require the waiver of the labor certification process.”
Translation: “The petitioner indicated she intends to pursue her proposed endeavor through employment. However, she did not explain or submit the evidence to establish that a U.S. employer cannot offer her a job through a labor certification process. She did not submit any evidence showing that the national interest in her contributions is sufficiently urgent to require the waiver of the labor certification process.”
What this means: If you plan to work as an employee (not start a business), the officer asks: “Why can’t an employer file PERM for you?” You need to explain: (1) why PERM is impractical in your case, OR (2) why your contribution is so urgent that waiting for PERM is not possible, OR (3) why your skills are so unique that PERM cannot adequately describe them.
Pattern across the three RFEs: what gets approved and what gets rejected
Comparing three cases (exercise physiologist, pilot, accountant) shows a clear pattern:
| Element | Exercise Physiologist | Pilot | Accountant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced Degree / EA | Approved | RFE (no evaluation) | Approved |
| Substantial Merit | Approved | NOT | Approved |
| National Importance | NOT | NOT | NOT |
| Well Positioned | Approved | NOT | Approved |
| Beneficial to Waive | NOT | NOT | NOT |
Conclusion: National Importance and Prong 3 are the two places where the vast majority of NIW petitions fail. Substantial Merit and Well Positioned are relatively easier to approve. The whole difficulty is national importance (your work must extend beyond one employer/client) and the waiver justification (why PERM is not appropriate).
Case 3 (continued): Denial — same accountant
The petitioner responded to the RFE but received a denial. Same officer. New important quotes from the denial:
Denial: expert letter discusses industry importance, not your endeavor
“The expert letter written by [expert] states, ‘It will be a significant economic loss for the United States to miss the opportunity to benefit from [petitioner’s] advanced knowledge and skills in the areas of accounting and financial consulting.’ However, the expert letter writer does not discuss the national importance of self-petitioner’s specific, proposed endeavor rather than the national importance of small businesses, globalization of businesses and Accountant field in which the petitioner intends to work.”
Translation: “The expert letter written by [expert] states, ‘It will be a significant economic loss for the United States to miss the opportunity to benefit from [petitioner’s] advanced knowledge and skills in the areas of accounting and financial consulting.’ However, the expert letter writer does not discuss the national importance of the self-petitioner’s specific, proposed endeavor rather than the national importance of small businesses, globalization of businesses and the accounting field in which the petitioner intends to work.”
What this means: The expert letter praises the petitioner and states accounting is important. But the officer sees the difference: “The expert wrote that accounting is important to the economy. They did not say what SPECIFIC activity the petitioner will do that is different from thousands of other accountants.” This is a classic mistake in expert letters for NIW — praising the field instead of the petitioner’s specific endeavor.
Denial: STEM field does not grant automatic approval
“Counsel references STEM as it relates to Accountant specialist. However, while the petitioner’s specific proposed endeavor may fall within a STEM field, it does not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the STEM endeavor must have both substantial merit and national importance in respect to the first prong.”
Translation: “Counsel references STEM as it relates to Accountant specialist. However, while the petitioner’s specific proposed endeavor may fall within a STEM field, it does not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the STEM endeavor must have both substantial merit and national importance in respect to the first prong.”
What this means: The attorney tried to leverage STEM for an accountant. The officer rejected it: STEM is not a magic wand. Even if your profession is categorized as STEM, you still must prove national importance of your SPECIFIC endeavor. “I am an accountant in a STEM area” != “my endeavor is nationally important.”
Denial: recommendation letters are advisory opinions, not definitive proof
“The submission of letters from experts supporting Form I-140 is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the individual’s eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.”
Translation: “The submission of letters from experts supporting Form I-140 is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the individual’s eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable.”
What this means: Recommendation letters are OPINIONS, not FACTS. USCIS will read them but may disagree. Especially if: (1) the opinion is not corroborated by other documents, (2) the opinion conflicts with other evidence, or (3) the opinion is in any way questionable. Don’t rely solely on letters — you need documentary evidence.
Denial: the business plan did not demonstrate national importance
“The petitioner has not demonstrated in her business plan nor in the totality of the record that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the national economy resulting from the petitioner’s endeavor would reach the level of ‘substantial positive economic effects’ contemplated by Dhanasar.”
Translation: “The petitioner has not demonstrated in her business plan nor in the totality of the record that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the national economy resulting from the petitioner’s endeavor would reach the level of ‘substantial positive economic effects’ contemplated by Dhanasar.”
What this means: There was a business plan, but it lacked SPECIFIC projections: how many U.S. jobs will you create? What economic effect in dollars? What growth? Without numbers, a business plan is generic. For NIW you need projections: “My business will create X jobs in Y years, generate revenue Z, and economic impact W.” And support for those projections.
Denial: failing Prong 1 means Prong 2 and 3 are not considered
“Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of Dhanasar, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.”
Translation: “Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of Dhanasar, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.”
What this means: If you fail Prong 1 (national importance) the officer will not even evaluate Prongs 2 and 3. That’s a cascading denial. All your letters, degrees, and experience won’t be considered because the foundation (national importance) is not established. Prong 1 is the FOUNDATION of the petition.
Case 4: Aircraft Design Engineer (Nebraska Service Center)
Aircraft Design Engineer, premium processing. ALL three prongs not met + ETA-9089 was forgotten. This RFE is unique because the officer dissected specific errors in the personal statement and explained why three recommendation letters were useless.
RFE: forgot ETA-9089 — separate note
“A properly filed National Interest Waiver Form I-140 must be submitted with an ETA Form 750B or Sections J, K, and L of ETA Form 9089. The ETA Form 750B or Sections J, K, and L must be fully completed and signed in the original. You did not submit either of these with your Form I-140.”
Translation: “A properly filed National Interest Waiver Form I-140 must be submitted with an ETA Form 750B or Sections J, K, and L of ETA Form 9089. The ETA Form 750B or Sections J, K, and L must be fully completed and signed in the original. You did not submit either of these with your Form I-140.”
What this means: Even for NIW (without PERM) ETA-9089 (or ETA-750B) is required. This is a formal requirement many forget. Without it — automatic RFE, even if the rest of the case is strong. Double-check before filing.
RFE: “I love my job and will continue” — that is NOT a plan
The petitioner wrote in the employment plan:
“You submitted an employment plan and indicated that: ‘My job has always been good and quite easy for me, I love my field of activity, and I will do my best to continue my career as an aeronautical engineer in the United States. Due to the specifics of my specialty, I plan to continue working for hire.’ However, the evidence in the record is not sufficient to show your accomplishments in the field or progress in the field will support future projections of the petitioner’s work in the endeavor in the United States.”
Translation: “You submitted an employment plan and indicated that: ‘My job has always been good and quite easy for me, I love my field of activity, and I will do my best to continue my career as an aeronautical engineer in the United States. Due to the specifics of my specialty, I plan to continue working for hire.’ However, the evidence in the record is not sufficient to show your accomplishments in the field or progress in the field will support future projections of the petitioner’s work in the endeavor in the United States.”
What this means: “I love my job and will continue” is not a plan. It’s a personal statement that proves nothing. The officer needs: (1) WHAT specifically you will do, (2) WHERE (which companies, projects), (3) WHAT outcomes are expected, (4) WHAT grounds you have to believe this is realistic (contacts, offers, contracts). “I will continue working for hire” = “you have no plan.”
RFE: Google Scholar without comparative statistics is not evidence
“You submitted a google scholar’s document that indicated that you have three published articles. However, the evidence does not offer comparative statistics demonstrating the significance of your level of citation within your field, nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that your published articles constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in your work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong.”
Detailed breakdown
Translation: “You submitted a Google Scholar document indicating three published articles. However, the evidence does not offer comparative statistics demonstrating the significance of your level of citation within your field, nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that your published articles constitute a record of success or a level of interest in your work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong.”
What this means: A Google Scholar screenshot showing 3 articles is insufficient. The officer expects CONTEXT: average citation rates in your field vs. your citations. How many citations does a typical article in your journal receive? How do your citations compare? Without context, “3 articles, N citations” means little.
RFE: three recommendation letters — all from acquaintances, no independent letters
“You submitted three letters of recommendations. While the letters are highly complimentary of your skills, the letters do not appear to be from independent experts in the field. You submitted no other evidence of interest in your endeavor by other relevant individuals or entities within your field of endeavor. Your current and former colleagues may be considered experts in the field, but since the individuals had previously worked with you, they would not be considered independent.”
Translation: “You submitted three letters of recommendation. While the letters are highly complimentary of your skills, the letters do not appear to be from independent experts in the field. You submitted no other evidence of interest in your endeavor by other relevant individuals or entities within your field of endeavor. Your current and former colleagues may be considered experts in the field, but since the individuals had previously worked with you, they would not be considered independent.”
What this means: ALL three letters from colleagues/former colleagues = NO independent letters. The officer explicitly states: “colleagues = not independent, even if they are experts.” For NIW it’s critical to have at least 2–3 letters from people who know your work through publications/conferences/reputation but did NOT work with you personally.
RFE: “shortage of engineers” is not grounds for a waiver
“In your personal statement, you indicated that: ‘[Petitioner’s] field of activity is very important for the economy of the United States, at the same time, there is a shortage of specialists such as [petitioner] (STEM professions specialists) in the United States.’ Accordingly, a shortage of Aircraft Design Engineers does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification is necessary, but rather it is a positive factor in your likely ability to obtain one.”
Translation: “In your personal statement, you indicated that: ‘[Petitioner’s] field of activity is very important for the economy of the United States, at the same time, there is a shortage of specialists such as [petitioner] (STEM professions specialists) in the United States.’ Accordingly, a shortage of Aircraft Design Engineers does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification is necessary, but rather it is a positive factor in your likely ability to obtain one.”
What this means: The officer flips the argument: “Shortage of engineers? Great — that means an employer will likely obtain PERM for you easily. Why do you need a waiver?” This logic recurs in every RFE where the petitioner relies on shortages.
Case 5: Legal researcher on human trafficking (Texas Service Center)
A lawyer with a degree from a Russian university (equivalent to a professional degree in law). ALL three prongs not met. This case is instructive — the officer explained the difference between describing a field and describing a specific endeavor, citing Dhanasar as the standard.
RFE: “could pursue” is not a plan, it’s a wish list
The petitioner submitted a professional plan listing areas: RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND TRAINING, COORDINATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. But each began with the words “here are a few areas [the self-petitioner] could pursue.” The officer rejected:
“The professional plan did not provide a specific endeavor for which the self-petitioner intends to pursue. The professional plan stated, ‘[h]ere are a few areas [the self-petitioner] could pursue’ - ‘RESEARCH’ in which ‘[h]e could work at a university or research organization to expand our knowledge about this crime and develop effective strategies to combat it’, ‘EDUCATION AND TRAINING’ in which he ‘could engage in educational work and train employees of various organizations’, and ‘COORDINATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS’ in which ‘[h]e could participate in projects and initiatives aimed at reducing human trafficking in the United States’.”
Translation: “The professional plan did not provide a specific endeavor which the self-petitioner intends to pursue. The professional plan stated, ‘[h]ere are a few areas [the self-petitioner] could pursue’ — ‘RESEARCH’ in which ‘[h]e could work at a university or research organization to expand our knowledge about this crime and develop effective strategies to combat it’, ‘EDUCATION AND TRAINING’ in which he ‘could engage in educational work and train employees of various organizations’, and ‘COORDINATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS’ in which ‘[h]e could participate in projects and initiatives aimed at reducing human trafficking in the United States’.”
What this means: “Could pursue” is not “will pursue.” “Several areas” is not a concrete endeavor. The officer literally quoted the plan and showed: it’s a wish list, not a concrete, measurable endeavor. Compare to Dhanasar, where the endeavor was: “to continue research in the design and development of propulsion systems for nanosatellites, ballistic missiles and single-stage orbital vehicles.” Specific, measurable, tied to reality.
RFE: without a concrete endeavor the officer CANNOT evaluate any prong
“Without the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor, he impedes USCIS in determining that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance and that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. As a result, the self-petitioner also impedes USCIS in determining that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.”
Translation: “Without the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor, he impedes USCIS in determining that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance and that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. As a result, the self-petitioner also impedes USCIS in determining that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.”
What this means: The endeavor is the FOUNDATION. Without it all three prongs collapse. The officer cannot begin analysis. It’s like evaluating a business plan without a business description. The endeavor must be defined before arguing national importance, well positioned, or beneficial to waive.
RFE: even socially important topics (human trafficking) don’t save you without a concrete endeavor
The petitioner submitted government documents: White House Fact Sheet on combating trafficking, Department of Justice publication about $87M to assist victims, Department of State report on the scope of the problem. The officer acknowledged the topic’s importance but rejected:
“While the articles demonstrated the national and global importance of combating human trafficking and assisting and supporting human trafficking victims, the articles were insufficient to establish the national importance of the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor. In determining national importance, the focus is not on the importance of the field, industry, or profession; instead USCIS must focus on ‘the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.’”
Translation: “While the articles demonstrated the national and global importance of combating human trafficking and assisting and supporting human trafficking victims, the articles were insufficient to establish the national importance of the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor. In determining national importance, the focus is not on the importance of the field, industry, or profession; instead USCIS must focus on ‘the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.’”
What this means: Human trafficking is objectively nationally important. Government documents prove that. But the officer still denied. Why? Because the question is not “is the problem important?” but “how does YOUR specific endeavor address this problem?” “I will combat human trafficking” = vague and non-specific.
RFE: working for clients/employers is not broader impact
“The self-petitioner’s endeavor of working as a lawyer/researcher in the field of countering human trafficking does not demonstrate a national importance, rather the impact is limited to the self-petitioner and his potential employers and potential clients.”
Translation: “The self-petitioner’s endeavor of working as a lawyer/researcher in the field of countering human trafficking does not demonstrate a national importance; rather the impact is limited to the self-petitioner and his potential employers and potential clients.”
What this means: Even work in a socially important area (human rights, crime prevention) is judged by the same standard: does YOUR SPECIFIC ACTIVITY extend beyond your clients and employers? If not = not nationally important.
RFE: recommendation letters praise the person but don’t describe the endeavor
“Likewise, the self-petitioner’s other references speak of the self-petitioner’s extraordinary ability. The authors wrote about the self-petitioner’s personal and professional accomplishments including his passion and dedication; however, because the record does not sufficiently articulate the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor, the letters are insufficient to support whether the self-petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
Translation: “Likewise, the self-petitioner’s other references speak of the self-petitioner’s extraordinary ability. The authors wrote about the self-petitioner’s personal and professional accomplishments including his passion and dedication; however, because the record does not sufficiently articulate the self-petitioner’s proposed endeavor, the letters are insufficient to support whether the self-petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
What this means: Letters praise the PERSON but do not describe the ENDEAVOR. “He is passionate and dedicated” — good, but for Prong 2 you need: “Here is the SPECIFIC endeavor, and here is why THIS PERSON is uniquely able to advance it.” Without the endeavor, letters float without context.
Final comparative table across 5 cases
| Case | Profession | Center | Prong 1 (Merit) | Prong 1 (NI) | Prong 2 | Prong 3 | Main problem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exercise Physiologist | TSC | Met | Not met | Met | Not met | Client services != national |
| 2 | Pilot | NSC | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not met | No concrete endeavor + shortage |
| 3 | Accountant/Auditor | TSC | Met | Not met | Met | Not met | STEM != automatic credit |
| 4 | Aero Engineer | NSC | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not met | “Love my job” != plan + missing ETA-9089 |
| 5 | Lawyer (human trafficking) | TSC | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not met | “Could pursue” != endeavor |
Main pattern: National Importance is the FOUNDATION. In all 5 cases national importance was not met. Substantial merit is easier (3 of 5). Well positioned — 2 of 5. Prong 3 was not met in any case.
Lesson #1: Without a concrete endeavor nothing works (cases 2, 4, 5).
Lesson #2: Industry importance != importance of your endeavor (all 5 cases).
Lesson #3: Workforce shortage = argument FOR PERM, not for waiver (cases 1, 2, 4).
Lesson #4: Working with clients != broader impact (cases 1, 3, 5).
Lesson #5: Recommendations not tied to the endeavor are useless (cases 4, 5).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How can I find out which officer is reviewing my case?
The officer number is visible on the decision for the case. Before the decision you do not know who is reviewing it.
Can I refile after a denial by a specific officer?
Yes. On refile the case may go to a different officer. Many applicants receive approval on the second attempt.
Does a denial in EB-1A close the door to other visas?
No. A denial in EB-1A does not affect O-1, EB-2 NIW or other categories. You can file in parallel.
Related articles: U.S., immigration and job search
👤 O-1 Visa. Petitioner - 📊 Visa Bulletin 2026 - 📋 Document translation for O-1/EB-1A - Officer 0413 - 📝 Scientific articles - Request For Evidence (RFE) Denial Database. When USCIS says "no"