NIW National Importance RFE

A Request for Evidence challenging national importance does not necessarily mean that USCIS considers the applicant’s field unimportant. In many NIW cases, USCIS accepts that the general area has substantial merit but concludes that the petition has not demonstrated the prospective national importance of the applicant’s specific proposed endeavor.

The response should therefore focus on the actual proposed endeavor and its prospective broader impact rather than repeat general statements about the importance of science, medicine, engineering or technology.

Review the complete NIW national importance guide.

The First Dhanasar Prong

The first prong requires the proposed endeavor to have:

substantial merit; and
national importance.

These are related but distinct concepts.

Substantial Merit May Be Easier Than National Importance

Many research endeavors clearly have substantial merit.

USCIS may agree that the work has value in science, health, technology or another area but still issue an RFE because the petition did not establish sufficiently broad prospective implications.

The Occupation Is Not the Proposed Endeavor

Current USCIS guidance emphasizes the distinction between an occupation and the specific endeavor the applicant proposes to advance.

Examples of occupations include:

biomedical researcher;
computer scientist;
mechanical engineer;
professor;
data scientist; and
research engineer.

The proposed endeavor should describe what the applicant actually intends to accomplish within that occupation.

Review the NIW proposed endeavor requirement.

Common RFE Finding: The Field Is Important, But the Endeavor Is Not Defined

A response should avoid relying on statements such as:

“Artificial intelligence is important to the United States.”
“Cancer research saves lives.”
“Cybersecurity is a national priority.”
“Semiconductors are important to the economy.”

Those statements may be true but do not, by themselves, establish what this applicant proposes to do.

Define the Endeavor First

A national-importance RFE response may clarify:

the specific problem;
the applicant’s proposed research;
the technology or scientific approach;
expected applications;
who could use the results;
planned professional activities;
future research objectives; and
the broader consequences if the work succeeds.

Do Not Materially Replace the Original Endeavor

The response may explain an endeavor more clearly, but the applicant must have been eligible when the petition was filed.

The RFE response should not create an entirely new endeavor solely to cure the notice.

Focus on Prospective Impact

National importance is forward looking.

The response should explain the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rather than discuss only past accomplishments.

Past Accomplishments Still Matter

Past research can support the credibility of the proposed future impact.

For example, prior:

publications;
citations;
patents;
implementation;
grants;
clinical results;
government projects; and
technology adoption

may demonstrate that the applicant’s plans are grounded in an established record.

Those achievements should be tied to the proposed endeavor rather than presented as substitutes for national importance.

Broader Implications

Research may have broader prospective implications for:

scientific knowledge;
public health;
medical diagnostics or treatment;
national security;
critical and emerging technology;
U.S. technological leadership;
economic competitiveness;
advanced manufacturing;
energy security;
infrastructure;
environmental protection;
agriculture;
transportation;
education; or
other significant national interests.

National Importance Is Not Purely Geographic

An endeavor does not need to be physically performed across the entire country.

Research at one university, hospital, laboratory or company can have national importance when its prospective implications extend beyond the immediate workplace.

Common RFE Finding: Benefit Is Limited to One Employer

USCIS may find that the petition demonstrates benefits to the applicant’s university or company but not broader implications.

The response may explain how the research:

can be published and used by other researchers;
addresses a widely shared technical problem;
can be adopted across an industry;
can affect patients beyond one institution;
can contribute to government priorities;
can influence standards;
can improve widely used technology; or
otherwise has effects beyond the immediate employer.

University Research Can Have National Importance

The fact that research is performed at one university does not limit its impact to that university.

The response should explain mechanisms through which results can affect the broader field.

Industry Research Can Have National Importance

Private-company research can also qualify.

The response should distinguish the proposed endeavor’s broader implications from ordinary benefits to the employer such as higher profits or improved internal operations.

Economic Impact

Potential economic effects can support national importance where appropriate.

Evidence may include:

industry scale;
productivity gains;
commercialization;
market effects;
technology leadership;
manufacturing capacity;
cost savings;
supply-chain significance; and
other credible economic consequences.

Job Creation Is Not Required in Every Research NIW

Research may have national importance because of scientific, technological, medical, security or other broader effects even where direct job creation is not the central argument.

Government Priorities

Government documents can be valuable where they identify the problem addressed by the proposed endeavor.

Potential sources may include:

federal statutes;
executive branch initiatives;
agency strategic plans;
government research programs;
Congressional materials;
national laboratory programs;
public-health priorities;
technology policy documents; and
official reports.

Connect the Government Priority to the Actual Endeavor

A common weakness is attaching numerous government reports but never explaining how the applicant’s work advances the stated priority.

The response should make the connection explicit.

Government Funding

A grant from NIH, NSF, DOE, DOD or another government agency may help demonstrate that the underlying research problem is important.

The applicant’s own role and relationship to the proposed endeavor should be documented.

Review research grants as immigration evidence.

Government Interest Letters

A substantive letter from a government agency may be particularly useful when it explains:

the government’s interest in the work;
why the problem matters;
how the applicant’s endeavor contributes;
current or anticipated use of the research; and
why continued work would benefit an important governmental objective.

Public Health Research

Medical research may establish national importance through prospective effects on:

disease prevention;
diagnostics;
therapeutics;
clinical outcomes;
health-care delivery;
medical technology;
public-health preparedness; and
other significant health needs.

Artificial Intelligence Research

An AI petition should do more than state that artificial intelligence is a critical technology.

The response should identify what the applicant’s AI work is expected to accomplish and why that particular advancement has broader implications.

Review NIW for AI researchers.

Computer Science Research

Computer science research may affect cybersecurity, computing infrastructure, health care, communications, data systems, critical technology or many other areas.

The response should identify the actual use case and expected impact.

Engineering Research

Engineering endeavors may have broader implications for:

advanced manufacturing;
energy;
aerospace;
transportation;
infrastructure;
semiconductors;
materials;
communications;
safety; and
other strategically important systems.

Review NIW for engineering researchers.

Evidence of Existing Adoption

Existing impact can help make prospective impact more credible.

Examples include:

technology implementation;
patent licensing;
clinical use;
government adoption;
software deployment;
standards incorporation;
commercialization;
research use by independent institutions; and
other measurable effects.

Review research impact beyond citations.

Publications and Citations

Publications and citations may demonstrate a successful research history.

They do not automatically establish the prospective national importance of future work.

The response should explain how prior research supports the credibility and expected impact of the proposed endeavor.

High Citations Are Not Required for National Importance

An endeavor’s national importance is not determined by a citation threshold.

A researcher can potentially establish national importance through other evidence of prospective broader impact.

Low Citations Do Not Automatically Defeat National Importance

A researcher with recent publications, proprietary industry work or applied technology may have limited academic citations but substantial evidence concerning the future importance of the endeavor.

Recommendation Letters

Expert letters can help explain why highly technical work has broader implications.

A useful national-importance letter should:

identify the specific endeavor;
explain the relevant problem;
describe the potential broader effects;
avoid generic praise;
identify the writer’s expertise; and
be supported by objective evidence where available.

Avoid Circular Letters

A letter stating that the endeavor is nationally important because the applicant is an excellent researcher does not address the correct legal question.

National importance concerns the endeavor’s prospective impact.

Industry Reports

Industry reports can help establish the scale of a technical or economic problem.

The response should connect the report to the applicant’s proposed work.

Scientific Literature

Peer-reviewed literature can document an unresolved scientific problem and explain why further research is important.

The applicant should then show how the proposed endeavor addresses that problem.

Quantify Potential Impact Where Possible

Depending on the case, useful measures may include:

patient populations;
industry size;
energy consumption;
emissions;
manufacturing output;
costs;
security risks;
number of potential users;
infrastructure scale;
technology deployment; and
other measurable indicators.

Do Not Overstate Speculative Numbers

Projected impact should have a reasonable evidentiary basis.

Unsupported claims that research will create billions of dollars in value or transform an entire industry can weaken credibility.

National Importance Versus Well Positioned

These are separate Dhanasar prongs.

National importance asks whether the endeavor has sufficiently significant prospective impact.

Well positioned asks whether the particular applicant is capable of advancing it.

Review the NIW well-positioned requirement.

Do Not Use the Applicant’s Credentials as the Entire National-Importance Argument

A strong CV may establish that the applicant is well positioned, but credentials alone do not explain why the proposed endeavor is nationally important.

National Importance Versus the Third Prong

National importance also differs from the third Dhanasar prong.

The third prong balances the benefit of waiving the job-offer and labor-certification requirements.

Review the NIW third prong.

Correct USCIS Mischaracterizations

If the RFE defines the proposed endeavor too narrowly or incorrectly describes the research, the response should identify the relevant language from the original filing and explain the correct endeavor.

Eligibility at Filing

The response must demonstrate that the qualifying endeavor and NIW eligibility existed at filing.

Additional evidence can explain or document those facts, but the response should not create a materially different case after the filing date.

Suggested National Importance RFE Structure

A clear response may proceed as follows:

quote or summarize USCIS’s national-importance finding;
define the proposed endeavor precisely;
identify its substantial merit;
explain the prospective broader implications;
connect the endeavor to government, scientific, public-health, technological or economic evidence;
document existing progress or adoption where relevant;
use expert letters to explain specialized impact;
correct factual errors; and
conclude why the evidence satisfies Prong One by a preponderance of the evidence.

Common National Importance RFE Response Problems

repeating that the general field is important;
failing to define the specific endeavor;
relying solely on the applicant’s occupation;
showing only benefits to one employer;
submitting government reports without connecting them to the work;
using citations as automatic proof of national importance;
confusing the applicant’s qualifications with the endeavor’s importance;
making unsupported economic projections;
changing the endeavor materially after filing; and
failing to address the actual USCIS reasoning.

Related NIW Guides

Primary Legal Sources

USCIS Policy Manual, National Interest Waivers
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)
8 C.F.R. § 103.2
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)

Move From the Field to the Specific Endeavor

The strongest national-importance RFE response shows USCIS exactly what the applicant proposes to do, identifies the prospective effects of that work and supports those effects with objective evidence tied directly to the endeavor.

Contact The Messersmith Law Firm to request review of an NIW national importance RFE.

This page provides general immigration information and is not legal advice.