Chicago Immigration Lawyer Blog
Introduction
We are discussing eight NIW decisions addressing proposed work in orthopedic surgery, semiconductor research, supply-chain consulting, cardiovascular research, financial risk, sustainable architecture, hearing research, and cybersecurity. Seven are appeals from USCIS denials. One is a combined motion to reopen and reconsider a prior NIW appeal.
These decisions are nonprecedent but provide useful information about adjudicative trends. Their value lies in the AAO’s explanation of the evidentiary shortcomings it identified in these cases.
The AAO generally dismissed these matters after finding that the petitioners had not established the national importance element of Dhanasar’s first prong. In most cases, it expressly reserved the second and third prongs. The decisions therefore do not establish that every petitioner failed all three prongs. They establish that failure to prove the first prong was dispositive.
Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. brings experienced counsel and a sophisticated, detail-focused approach to immigration matters. The firm handles complex cases across employment-based immigration, family immigration, asylum, and removal defense, combining careful legal analysis with practical, case-specific advocacy.
I. The governing framework
A petitioner must first qualify for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. The petitioner must then demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three-part framework in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889–91 (AAO 2016).
A. Prong one: substantial merit and national importance
The first prong concerns the petitioner’s specific proposed endeavor. Substantial merit may arise in fields such as business, science, technology, health, or education. National importance depends on the endeavor’s potential prospective impact. Relevant considerations may include broader implications within a field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. The inquiry does not turn solely on geographic reach. A locally focused endeavor may qualify if the evidence establishes broader implications.
The importance of a profession, industry, or social problem does not, standing alone, establish the national importance of a petitioner’s particular work.
B. Prong two: well positioned to advance the endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the endeavor to the petitioner. Dhanasar identifies relevant considerations that include the petitioner’s education, skills, knowledge, and record of success; a model or plan for future activities; progress toward the endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant parties. The inquiry does not require proof that the endeavor is more likely than not to succeed. It does require evidence that the petitioner is well positioned to advance it.
C. Prong three: balance of benefits
The third prong asks whether, on balance, waiving the job-offer and labor-certification requirements would benefit the United States. Dhanasar identifies factors that may include whether securing a job offer or labor certification would be impractical; whether the United States would benefit from the petitioner’s contributions even if qualified U.S. workers are available; and whether the national interest in the contributions is sufficiently urgent.
This prong does not require proof of harm to the national interest or a comparison between the petitioner and U.S. workers. It requires a reasoned showing that the benefits of a waiver outweigh the interests served by the job-offer and labor-certification process.
II. The September decisions
1. Orthopedic surgeon and researcher
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner proposed to improve treatment for hip and pelvic disorders through less invasive procedures, physician training, research, and dissemination of treatment methods. He relied on nearly forty years of experience and asserted that his diagnostic and treatment methods had worldwide application. USCIS denied the NIW petition. On appeal, he argued that USCIS had reduced the endeavor to individualized patient care and had failed to account for its implications for hip preservation, early diagnosis, physician training, academic dissemination, and clinical practice.
An expert described four proposed delivery mechanisms: supervised simulation labs, tele-mentoring for surgeons in rural or underserved settings, continuing medical education, and an outcomes registry.
Prong one. The AAO accepted that the endeavor had substantial merit but found insufficient evidence of national importance. The recommendation letters praised the petitioner’s experience and clinical methods, but did not adequately explain or corroborate how his specific future work would affect U.S. orthopedic practice, care protocols, or societal welfare at a broader level. The record also did not explain how the four delivery mechanisms would be implemented at a scale commensurate with the claimed impact. The petitioner identified no specific research funding sources and did not adequately describe the time he would devote to future research.
Prongs two and three. USCIS had found the petitioner well positioned, but the AAO did not independently analyze that conclusion. The AAO expressly reserved the third prong after finding the first prong dispositive. In re 43883225, No. 43883225 (AAO Sept. 1, 2026).
2. Research on soft materials and semiconductor packaging
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner initially proposed research on the failure mechanics of soft materials and composites. In later submissions, he connected the research to semiconductor packaging, describing work using simulations and failure analysis to assess product reliability and inform design and material choices. He relied on federal semiconductor initiatives, the CHIPS and Science Act, investment in advanced packaging, the industry’s economic scale, and a later position as a principal packaging engineer. An employer letter stated that more than 80 percent of his work involved research and development.
Prong one. The AAO accepted substantial merit but found the proposed endeavor’s national importance unproven. It identified inconsistencies in the petitioner’s descriptions of the endeavor and the field it would affect. The recommendation letters discussed prior projects in aerospace and automotive settings rather than the specific semiconductor work. The record did not establish how the petitioner’s research would affect semiconductor manufacturing beyond his employer and its clients. The size of the industry and government investment in it did not establish the prospective impact of his particular work. The AAO also noted that later employment evidence and post-filing developments could not replace evidence needed to establish eligibility at filing.
Prongs two and three. The AAO did not reach them. In re 43887816, No. 43887816 (AAO Sept. 1, 2026).
3. Supply-chain consulting company
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner planned to establish a New Jersey consulting company serving small and midsize businesses. The proposed services included strategic planning, process optimization, supplier management, and technology solutions. The business plan projected revenue of $314,600 in year one, increasing to more than $1.3 million in year five. It also projected growth from two workers to twelve and asserted that the company would create fifty indirect jobs.
On appeal, the petitioner cited business and manufacturing publications and argued that the company would address structural concerns in those sectors.
Prong one. The AAO accepted substantial merit but found the business plan’s economic claims unsubstantiated. It did not explain service fees, the number of clients expected, the basis for anticipated growth, or why the projected revenue would support the proposed staffing levels. The plan did not explain why the business needed twelve employees or substantiate the claimed fifty indirect jobs. The AAO found that these unsupported projections undermined the reliability of the plan and other evidence.
The record also did not establish how the company’s consulting services would affect the field beyond its own clients. General publications about business and manufacturing did not explain the impact of this company’s particular work. Some materials submitted on appeal postdated the filing, and the older materials did not connect the petitioner’s company to broader implications.
Prongs two and three. USCIS had found both prongs unmet. The AAO expressly reserved its own determination on those prongs because the first prong was dispositive. In re 43903384, No. 43903384 (AAO Sept. 1, 2026).
4. Cybersecurity petitioner’s combined motions
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner previously sought an NIW for cybersecurity work involving secure-by-design methods, open-source software security, software ecosystems, and critical infrastructure. After the AAO dismissed the appeal on national-importance grounds, he filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. He submitted a CISA cybersecurity advisory and argued that his endeavor could support national cybersecurity goals and generate economic benefits.
Prong one and the motion standards. The AAO found that the new advisory did not specifically concern the petitioner’s endeavor and did not establish the endeavor’s broader impact, potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial economic effects. The petitioner also repeated arguments and relied on evidence already considered. The AAO explained that a motion to reopen must present new facts supported by evidence, while a motion to reconsider must show that the prior decision misapplied law or policy based on the record then before the agency. It found that neither standard had been met.
Prongs two and three. The September motion decision made no new findings on those prongs. The underlying appeal had been resolved on the first prong. In re 44023268, No. 44023268 (AAO Sept. 1, 2026).
5. Cardiovascular clinical research coordinator
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner proposed to improve cardiovascular care by optimizing structural-heart trials, improving research infrastructure, expanding bilingual patient education, increasing Latino participation in clinical trials, and mentoring bilingual clinical professionals. She relied on federal health-equity initiatives, her work on clinical trials, case reports, conference materials, and recommendation letters. She argued that her participation in multicenter trials could contribute to device approvals, safety standards, and treatment guidelines used nationally.
Prong one. The AAO accepted the endeavor’s substantial merit but found the record did not establish national importance. The evidence primarily described work within the petitioner’s employer’s research team. The record did not adequately show that medical or technological advances from that team would be attributable to her particular role or that her work would affect the field more broadly.
The AAO found that the case reports lacked evidence of significance or independent influence, such as citation evidence. The record also lacked a specific methodology or implementation plan for the proposed education and mentoring work, including the intended audience and scale. Some conference activity was scheduled after filing. The letters described the petitioner’s duties and qualities but did not persuasively explain the broader impact of her specific contribution.
Prongs two and three. USCIS had found all three prongs unmet. The AAO decided the appeal on the first prong and did not independently resolve the second or third. In re 42910466, No. 42910466 (AAO Sept. 2, 2026).
6. Financial-risk specialist
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner proposed to strengthen transparency and interpretability in regulatory financial-risk frameworks through work on risk metrics, value-at-risk backtesting, and stress testing. She connected the endeavor to financial stability and the work of agencies such as the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC. She cited systemic risk, the COVID-era economic disruption, the Silicon Valley Bank failure, and one scholarly publication. Her future work description referred to several possible financial-risk positions.
Prong one. The AAO disagreed with USCIS’s conclusion that the endeavor lacked substantial merit. It nevertheless found national importance unproven. The petitioner had not described the proposed endeavor clearly enough to show whether it centered on employment at a financial institution, scholarly work, or both. The record did not show specific agency interest in her proposed framework work, and it did not establish that her publication had attracted attention or citations. Evidence about financial crises and regulatory priorities did not show that her particular work would materially improve financial stability or produce substantial economic effects.
The AAO also found no clear plans or projections establishing national-level impact or effects on hiring. It noted that many financial professionals perform risk-related work, while the petitioner offered little evidence that she would contribute novel ideas capable of producing the claimed impact.
Prongs two and three. The AAO expressly reserved both prongs after finding the first prong unmet. In re 43922345, No. 43922345 (AAO Sept. 3, 2026).
7. Sustainable architecture and urban design
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner proposed to advance sustainable architecture and urban design through energy-efficient public and educational buildings and master planning for cultural institutions. He relied on public-sector projects in New York and Connecticut and asserted that the projects could provide replicable models for communities elsewhere.
The recommendation letters described local benefits and asserted that the petitioner’s work could support nationwide models, equitable development, and responses to climate and infrastructure needs.
Prong one. The AAO accepted substantial merit but found the letters’ assertions too general and insufficiently corroborated. They did not explain how the petitioner’s work, in particular, would generate the claimed broader effects. The record also did not clearly show how the petitioner would pursue the endeavor beyond his current employment or distinguish the proposed work from his ordinary duties on his employer’s projects. It lacked evidence of economic impact or job creation attributable to the petitioner’s own future work.
Prongs two and three. The petitioner’s degree and experience were relevant to his ability to perform the work, but the AAO did not decide whether he met the second prong. It expressly reserved the remaining prongs. In re 44004678, No. 44004678 (AAO Sept. 3, 2026).
8. Biomechanical models for hearing research
Proposed endeavor and petitioner’s position. The petitioner proposed research into non-reflective traveling waves and the development of cost-effective biomechanical models for noninvasively studying hearing function. He relied on statistics about hearing loss and its costs, government initiatives, industry materials, and letters describing earlier research. He argued that the proposed research could improve evaluation methods and reduce costs associated with hearing-related conditions.
Prong one. The AAO accepted substantial merit but found that the record did not connect the general problem to the prospective impact of the petitioner’s specific research. Statistics about prevalence and cost, along with evidence of government initiatives, established the importance of the subject area but did not corroborate the project’s likely effects. The letters focused largely on prior research rather than explaining how the proposed work would be implemented or affect the field.
Prongs two and three. The AAO expressly reserved the remaining prongs after finding national importance unestablished. In re 41086632, No. 41086632 (AAO Sept. 3, 2026).
III. Comparative analysis
A. The AAO distinguished the field from the endeavor
The most consistent issue was not whether the fields were important. Orthopedic care, semiconductor manufacturing, cardiovascular research, financial stability, sustainable design, and hearing research all involve consequential interests. The AAO instead asked whether the record established the prospective impact of each petitioner’s particular work.
That distinction follows Dhanasar. Evidence about an industry or national problem may provide context. It does not necessarily prove that one petitioner’s proposed endeavor will produce broader implications or substantial economic effects.
B. The record often failed to connect the petitioner’s role to the claimed outcome
Several petitioners relied on the achievements or importance of an employer, research team, public project, or industry. The AAO found insufficient evidence that the petitioner’s own work would produce or materially contribute to the claimed broader impact.
This issue appeared in the cardiovascular case, where the petitioner’s role on an employer’s trials was not adequately connected to the asserted effect on national treatment standards. It also appeared in the architecture case, where the record did not distinguish the petitioner’s endeavor from ordinary project duties, and in the semiconductor case, where the claimed impact remained tied to the employer and its clients.
C. Letters and general publications did not cure evidentiary gaps
Recommendation letters were often favorable, but the AAO found that some emphasized skill, character, past work, or the general importance of the field without explaining the proposed endeavor’s future impact. General publications and government materials likewise failed when they were not connected to the petitioner’s specific work.
The decisions do not establish that letters or background sources lack value. They show that their probative value depends on how specifically they support the element at issue.
D. Business projections require evidentiary support
The consulting-company decision illustrates the risk of relying on projected revenue, hiring, and indirect job creation without explaining the assumptions. Those projections were material because the petitioner relied on them to establish potential employment and economic effects. The AAO found that unsupported figures weakened not only the projections but also the reliability of the business plan.
E. Prongs two and three should not be inferred from a prong-one denial
In most of these decisions, the AAO did not reach the second and third prongs. A petitioner may have strong credentials, prior achievements, or a persuasive reason to seek a waiver, but the AAO can dispose of the appeal after finding the endeavor lacks demonstrated national importance.
Conversely, a decision that reserves Prongs 2 and 3 does not establish that the petitioner would have failed those prongs. The record may contain evidence relevant to them, but the AAO did not decide the questions.
IV. Implications for petition preparation
The cases underscore the need to define the endeavor precisely and keep that definition consistent throughout the record. The petitioner should identify the work to be performed, its intended users or beneficiaries, the implementation path, and the evidence supporting the claimed prospective effects.
Evidence should also be organized according to the prong it supports. Qualifications and prior successes may support Prong 2. A specific implementation plan, evidence of potential adoption, independent validation, and substantiated economic projections may support Prong 1. The Prong 3 analysis should address the balance identified in Dhanasar, rather than repeat the national-importance argument.
Experienced counsel can help identify the legal theory, separate the evidentiary functions of the three prongs, reconcile inconsistencies, and determine whether projections and expert opinions rest on supportable facts. Counsel cannot create eligibility or guarantee approval, but a disciplined record can address the specific issues that decided these appeals.
Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. is an experienced immigration law firm that analyzes NIW petitions under the Dhanasar framework and develops evidence strategies for each petitioner’s proposed work.
Conclusion
The September decisions principally concern the first Dhanasar prong. The AAO repeatedly found that the petitioners had not sufficiently connected the importance of a field, profession, or employer to the prospective impact of their own proposed endeavors. In most cases, it therefore did not decide whether the petitioners were well positioned or whether waiving the job-offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Takeaway for the September NIW roundup: Establish the endeavor’s specific prospective impact first. Then address separately the petitioner’s ability to advance that endeavor and the balance of benefits from waiving the job-offer and labor-certification requirements.