Risk Analysis — All Three Prongs
RFE Risk Signals
by Prong
USCIS does not publish RFE rates by category. The signals documented here reflect analysis of adjudication patterns. They are not statistical claims. Treat them as areas of known scrutiny, not as probabilities.
The RFE Landscape
RFEs occur when USCIS determines that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish, by a preponderance, one or more of the required elements. Under Dhanasar, all three prongs must be satisfied. A gap in any one can generate a request. A gap across multiple prongs often generates a compound request — one document, multiple questions.
The structure of most RFEs follows the prong structure of Dhanasar. Understanding which prong a signal belongs to helps you anticipate the likely form of any challenge before it arrives.
Prong I: Substantial Merit and National Importance
"How do we know this work has impact beyond your own claims?"
Substantial merit cannot rest on self-attestation. USCIS evaluates what external sources — independent of the petitioner and employer — say about the work. Absence of third-party evidence on this prong is the most common source of RFEs for Prong I.
What generates this signal
- No peer-reviewed publications
- No citations to your work by others
- No competitive awards
- No patents (granted or in active use)
- No media coverage from recognized outlets
- No invitation to speak at recognized conferences
Preemption
Inventory every piece of third-party evidence before filing. Quantify where possible. "Twelve peer-reviewed publications including two in top-quartile journals" is materially stronger than "multiple publications." If your third-party evidence is limited, be explicit about what you have and frame it within the full evidentiary picture rather than allowing the gap to appear unacknowledged.
"I have published research in my field and received recognition from colleagues."
"The petitioner has published 9 peer-reviewed articles, 4 of which have been cited by researchers at NIST and Stanford. She received the 2023 IEEE Young Investigator Award (competitive; 3% acceptance rate)."
"Where is the documented evidence that this is a national-scale problem?"
Under Dhanasar, national importance requires broader implications — not just that the field matters in general, but that a documented need exists at national scale and that this specific work addresses it. Asserting importance without sourcing it to published documentation is the second most common Prong I RFE trigger.
What generates this signal
- National importance argued through logic alone, without external documentation
- Citing secondary sources (news articles, blog posts) instead of primary government or research sources
- Documenting that a field matters broadly without connecting the petitioner's specific work to the documented need
- Overly geographic framing when broader systemic impact is what Dhanasar requires
Preemption
Identify 2–3 authoritative published sources — government agency reports (NIH, CDC, NSF, DOL, HHS), peer-reviewed systematic reviews, or official policy documents — that establish the documented need. Then make the connection explicit: this specific work addresses this specific documented need. The connection must be direct, not inferential.
"Is the recognition of this work limited to the petitioner's employer or immediate professional circle?"
When all letters of recommendation come from the same institution, when all evidence of impact refers to internal outcomes, and when no external professional community has validated the work, USCIS may find that substantial merit has not been established at the required level.
Preemption
At least one or two letters should come from experts who have no institutional affiliation with the petitioner. Independent expert letters that can speak to the significance of the work from the outside carry substantially more weight than employer or close-colleague testimonials.
Prong II: Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
"What specifically will you do, and how would you know if you succeeded?"
The proposed endeavor is the most frequently challenged element across all EB-2 NIW petitions. USCIS requires a specific plan of work — not a career description, not a broad statement of professional direction, and not a reiteration of past accomplishments. The January 2025 USCIS policy update made this requirement more explicit: business plans and letters of support are relevant but not self-executing without independent corroborating evidence.
What generates this signal
- Proposed endeavor written as a career statement ("I plan to continue my research in...")
- No measurable outcomes defined
- No timeline or milestones
- Interchangeable with any other professional in the same field
- No identified collaborators, funders, or institutional resources
"I will continue to conduct research in machine learning and publish findings that benefit the field."
"Within 18 months, I will develop and open-source a validated ML model for early-stage pancreatic cancer detection, in collaboration with UCSF Radiology, targeting the 57,600 annual U.S. cases where early detection significantly improves survival outcomes."
"Why is this person — specifically — positioned to advance this work?"
Being well positioned requires that the petitioner's background directly supports their ability to execute the proposed endeavor. When the proposed work represents a significant pivot from the petitioner's documented history, USCIS will question why this person — as opposed to any other professional — is the right person for this work.
Preemption
The narrative connecting past work to the proposed endeavor must be explicit. If the proposed work is adjacent to (but not identical to) prior work, the connection requires explanation. If it represents a significant pivot, reconsider whether the endeavor accurately reflects the most defensible direction for this specific petitioner.
"Is there any evidence beyond the petitioner's own claims that this plan is realistic?"
Dhanasar explicitly states that USCIS does not require petitioners to demonstrate that their endeavors are more likely than not to ultimately succeed. However, petitioners must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. A plan without any external evidence of support — no funding, no institutional affiliation, no letters expressing interest from potential collaborators or users — is harder to defend than one with these anchors.
Preemption
Identify any existing evidence of external interest: a letter from a research institution, a grant award, a collaboration agreement, a contractual relationship, or a letter from a prospective employer or client. These do not need to be formal commitments — expressions of genuine interest from credible parties carry weight.
Prong III: Beneficial to Waive on Balance
"Why should the job offer and labor certification requirements be waived for this person?"
Prong III is a balancing test. Many petitions invest heavily in Prongs I and II and offer little direct argument on Prong III. Under Dhanasar, the relevant factors include: whether it would be impractical to secure a labor certification given the nature of the work; whether the U.S. would still benefit even if qualified U.S. workers exist; and whether urgency warrants forgoing the labor market test.
Preemption
Address Prong III directly. For researchers, the urgency and uniqueness of the specific line of work is often the strongest argument. For entrepreneurs, the impracticality of the labor certification process for self-employment is a recognized basis under Dhanasar. For practitioners in shortage areas, documented shortage data from HRSA or similar agencies strengthens the balance.
"How does this entrepreneur's active, central role in a U.S. entity advance the proposed endeavor?"
The January 2025 USCIS policy update specifically addressed entrepreneurs. General assertions about economic contributions or job creation are not sufficient. USCIS requires specific evidence demonstrating the petitioner's active and central role in a U.S.-based entity, including detailed market metrics, projected growth, and evidence that their specific knowledge or skills advance the endeavor in ways that go beyond what is ordinarily available.
Preemption
Business plans must go beyond assertions. Include market data with sources, specific projections grounded in comparable entities, and clear articulation of what the petitioner's unique role is — not what any competent manager could provide, but what this person's specific background enables.
Presentation and Documentation Quality
"These letters describe the petitioner's expertise, but do they establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor?"
The 2025 USCIS policy update clarified that letters of recommendation are relevant but carry less weight when they do not go beyond endorsing the petitioner's general qualifications. Letters should speak specifically to the national importance of the work, the petitioner's unique positioning, and — where relevant — the significance of the proposed endeavor to the field or to a documented national need.
Most RFEs can be preempted. The signals above represent known patterns. Addressing them in the initial petition — with specific evidence, not general assertions — is substantially more effective than responding to them after the fact.