CHALLENGING USCIS’S OVERLY NARROW INTERPRETATION OF “NATIONAL IMPORTANCE” IN NIW ADJUDICATIONS: A WHOLLY SUPERFICIAL FOCUS ON ECONOMIC IMPACT

Overview

In recent months, a discernible pattern has emerged in the adjudication of National Interest Waiver (NIW) petitions: Requests for Evidence (RFEs) that disproportionately and improperly emphasize the petitioner’s alleged failure to satisfy the first prong of national importance on the grounds that their proposed endeavor does not demonstrate direct economic benefits to the United States. These RFE notices often assert that the proposed endeavor lacks national importance because it does not lead to quantifiable job creation, revenue generation, or commercial activity. However, this line of reasoning misinterprets the legal framework established in Matter of Dhanasar, which explicitly recognizes that an endeavor may serve the national interest through a variety of means, including artistic or cultural enrichment, advancement of a valuable technology or a field of study, and broadly enhanced societal welfare. By reducing “national importance” to a proxy for “economic impact,” USCIS continues to effectively undermine the governing Dhanasar standard and impose a wholly superficial review of a petitioner’s evidence. This article challenges that trend, providing legal critique to realign NIW adjudications with the proper scope and intent of the law.

The National Importance Standard Under Dhanasar: A Contextual Evaluation, Not a Rigid Checklist

The first prong of Dhanasar asks whether the petitioner’s proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. This is described as a threshold inquiry involving a qualitative assessment of the nature, scope, and broader implications of the endeavor. It is designed to accommodate the wide variety of work that may serve the national interest in the modern era.

Under Dhanasar, USCIS evaluates the national importance of a proposed endeavor through a flexible, fact-specific analysis. While there is no exhaustive checklist, the agency generally considers the presence of certain positive factors of national importance, including:

• Employment generation: Whether the endeavor is likely to create jobs or employ U.S. workers, especially for entrepreneurs.
• Broad economic impact: Whether it may yield substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.
• Societal welfare contributions: Whether the endeavor will enhance health, safety, or other aspects of public welfare on a broad scale.
• Artistic or cultural enrichment: Whether it will contribute meaningfully to the enrichment or preservation of culture and the arts.
• Technological advancement: Whether it may lead to the foundational advancement of valuable technologies.
• Advancement of knowledge: Whether it is likely to advance a field of study, such as through applied academic research or innovation.

These factors reflect the breadth of endeavors that can qualify as nationally important, whether pursued by basic STEM researchers, non-STEM professionals, artists and cultural preservationists, or entrepreneurs. Importantly, they serve as contextual signals that, when viewed in totality, help USCIS assess the prospective national impact of an endeavor. The weight and relevance of each factor will vary depending on the nature of the work, the evidence presented, and the scope of anticipated outcomes across economic, social, technological, or artistic/cultural dimensions.

As seen in recent RFEs, these positive factors are often disregarded or given insufficient weight by adjudicators due to an overly narrow focus on economic benefits, even when the nature of the proposed endeavor does not readily lend itself to such impacts. In particular, USCIS frequently treats economic impact as a required element under this prong, when in fact Dhanasar explicitly provides otherwise: “Endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States.”

By its terms, the Dhanasar standard embraces qualitative contributions, even when they do not produce immediate or quantifiable economic outcomes. USCIS’s rather frequent misapplication of these factors not only undermines the integrity of the adjudication process but also marginalizes professionals in research, public health, infrastructure, and other important fields whose national contributions are often non-commercial by design.

So, What Is USCIS’s Problem, Really?

Despite the clear guidance in Dhanasar that an endeavor’s national importance may be demonstrated through a wide array of contributions, USCIS continues to issue RFEs that incorrectly impose economic productivity, particularly job creation or revenue generation, as a threshold requirement. This fundamentally misconstrues the first prong of Dhanasar by elevating economic impact from only one potentially favorable consideration to an essential prerequisite. In doing so, USCIS commits a legal overreach that ignores both the plain language and intent of the NIW category.

What’s more troubling is that this misinterpretation of the national importance standard penalizes individuals whose proposed endeavors, though clearly aligned with the United States’ best interests, do not lend themselves to immediate economic quantifiability. Examples may include:

• Basic STEM researchers, whose work expands foundational knowledge in their fields and whose breakthroughs often achieve practical implementation only months to years later, frequently through subsequent technological development and commercialization downstream in the innovation chain.
• Non-STEM professionals, whose work typically addresses deficiencies in current theoretical frameworks and provides more efficient methodologies that guide institutional changes across sectors such as public health, environmental policy, social work, and organizational governance.
• Artists or other cultural contributors, whose work enriches various art forms and mediums or preserves cultural and historical identity—core values of American society that serve long-standing public and humanity interests beyond measurable economic returns.

In each of these cases, the endeavor is highly consequential to the national interest. The demand for job creation or quantifiable commercial output simply may not apply. To insist otherwise is to impose an inappropriate economic filter that undermines the entire premise of Dhanasar: that certain contributions are so significant that they warrant a waiver of labor certification regardless of immediate economic impact.

How USCIS’s Interpretation of National Importance Evolves: Why Trends Matter

Although the adjudicative standards for NIW are based on formal legal precedent—namely, Dhanasar—the interpretation and application of that precedent are not static. Over time, USCIS may shift its emphasis in how it evaluates petitions, often in response to changes in policy priorities, workload, administrative guidance, or broader sociopolitical contexts. For petitioners, recognizing these trends can be critical in understanding what to expect from the process and how to present their work most effectively.

For example, in the wake of Dhanasar’s 2016 adoption, USCIS initially took a more inclusive and flexible approach to evaluating national importance. During this period, petitions highlighting contributions to scientific research, public health, or technology advancement—even without direct commercial applications—were often recognized as meeting the standard. However, in recent adjudications, especially since the beginning of 2025, petitioners and their respective attorneys have observed a growing tendency among some USCIS officers to anchor the concept of national importance in economic productivity, such as job creation, startup formation, or commercial scalability.

This shift is not necessarily the result of new law or regulation. Rather, it reflects an informal change in evaluative focus, which can sometimes lead to inconsistent or overly narrow interpretations of the Dhanasar standard. For instance, some RFEs now routinely ask petitioners to prove the economic benefit of their work, even when the endeavor clearly serves technological or societal imperatives in STEM, environmental, health, or arts fields.

Understanding these patterns is important for several reasons:

• It helps set realistic expectations. Petitioners may be surprised to receive an RFE focused on job creation, even if they are not entrepreneurs. Recognizing this trend can help manage those expectations and prepare for it proactively.
• It informs how a petition is framed. Without changing the substance of one’s work, a petitioner may choose to highlight broader societal or policy relevance, describe the long-term downstream effects of their research, or articulate connections to national priorities.
• It underscores the need for evidence diversity. When USCIS appears to be emphasizing a specific factor, such as economic impact, it becomes even more important to present varied and compelling evidence showing national importance through other legitimate channels.
• It reinforces the distinction between law and practice. While USCIS is bound by the legal standard, adjudicators’ internal interpretations and preferences can diverge. Petitioners are not powerless in the face of such trends, but should be aware of them to ensure their petitions are responsive, persuasive, and grounded in precedent.

The increasing tendency of USCIS to treat economic benefit as a prerequisite for an NIW is not merely a technical misreading of legal precedent, but a substantive shift with far-reaching implications for petitioners. When adjudicators elevate commercial metrics above all else, they risk distorting the original intent of the NIW category and undermining the broader goals of the U.S. immigration system.

The purpose of the National Interest Waiver is to attract individuals whose work serves the national interest, even when that work does not conform to traditional employment models or produce immediate economic returns. This may include researchers who drive scientific discovery, public health professionals who shape policy, or innovators whose technology advancements enhance long-term safety, security, and critical infrastructure. None of these contributions depend on whether the individual launches a business, creates jobs, or generates measurable revenue.

By narrowing the concept of national importance to fit a solely economic mold, USCIS devalues public-interest labor—the kind of work that is essential to a functioning society but often invisible in commercial calculations.

In short, this issue is not just about individual RFEs, but rather preserving the integrity and inclusiveness of a legal standard that was made to recognize a diverse array of contributions to the national interest, regardless of whether those contributions can be captured economically. When the standard is misapplied, the damage extends well-beyond immediate petitioners, as it affects the broader national goal of attracting and retaining top global talent to solve complex, long-term challenges across all types of fields. Collectively, what we need is greater awareness, transparency, and accountability.

Conclusion

The National Interest Waiver was never intended to reward only commercial success; it was also designed to recognize meaningful contributions to the expansion of human knowledge, the betterment of societal well-being, and the preservation of America’s core humanitarian values. As USCIS increasingly narrows its interpretation of national importance to focus on economic productivity, petitioners must remain vigilant, informed, and proactive in challenging this misapplication. Restoring balance to NIW adjudications is not solely a legal concern, but a policy imperative.

If you’ve received an RFE questioning the economic impact of your NIW petition, or if you are preparing a petition and unsure how to frame your work within the evolving standards, our team can help. For personalized guidance and assistance, please feel free to reach out to our team at Meng Law Group. You may also contact us via phone at (626) 339-9363 or email us directly at info@menglawgrp.com.