The Dhanasar Three-Prong Test Explained: The Core Framework Behind NIW Approvals (2025 Complete Guide)
A deep dive into the Dhanasar three-prong test — the framework USCIS uses to adjudicate every NIW petition. Learn what substantial merit, well positioned, and on balance beneficial really mean, the evidence each prong requires, and how the 2025 policy update changes the game.
The Dhanasar Three-Prong Test Explained: The Core Framework Behind NIW Approvals (2025 Complete Guide) #
Key Takeaways
- In 2016, the AAO overturned the 18-year-old NYSDOT standard in Matter of Dhanasar, establishing a new three-prong framework for NIW adjudication
- All three prongs must be satisfied: (1) the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor; (3) on balance, it would be beneficial to the U.S. to waive the labor certification requirement
- On January 15, 2025, USCIS issued its most detailed NIW policy update in nearly a decade (PA-2025-03), significantly refining the adjudication standards for all three prongs
- NIW approval rates dropped from 95.7% in FY2022 to 54% in FY2025 Q3 — precisely targeting the Dhanasar framework is now critical for approval
- The new policy gives favorable consideration to STEM critical and emerging technology fields, while explicitly excluding routine teaching and ordinary commercial activities
If you are preparing a National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition, the Dhanasar three-prong test is the single most important framework you need to understand. This is the standard USCIS adjudicators use to evaluate every NIW case — every piece of evidence, every recommendation letter, and every argument in your petition ultimately maps back to these three prongs.
Yet many applicants' understanding of Dhanasar stops at "I know there are three prongs." They lack a systematic grasp of what each prong actually requires, what evidence is needed, and what pitfalls to avoid. This guide starts from the historical context behind Dhanasar and then breaks down each prong in depth — covering its meaning, evidence requirements, and practical strategies for building a strong case.
How Did We Get Here? From NYSDOT to Dhanasar #
The NYSDOT Era (1998-2016) #
Before Dhanasar, the NIW adjudication standard came from the 1998 decision Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (commonly known as NYSDOT). NYSDOT also established a three-prong test:
| Prong | NYSDOT Original Language |
|---|---|
| First | The applicant's area of employment has "substantial intrinsic merit" |
| Second | The benefit must be "national in scope" |
| Third | The applicant must serve the national interest to a "substantially greater degree" than an available U.S. worker |
Over its 18 years, NYSDOT exposed serious problems:
Core Flaws of NYSDOT:
- Second prong was too rigid: The "national in scope" requirement meant that localized or regional entrepreneurial ventures almost never passed
- Third prong was nearly impossible to prove: Requiring applicants to demonstrate they could serve national interests better than U.S. workers was extremely difficult to quantify
- Inconsistent adjudication: Different officers interpreted the same standard very differently, leading to highly unpredictable outcomes
- Hostile to entrepreneurs: The NYSDOT framework was designed primarily for employed professionals and was extremely unfriendly to self-employed entrepreneurs
The Birth of Dhanasar (December 27, 2016) #
On December 27, 2016, the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) issued a landmark decision in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 — overturning NYSDOT and establishing an entirely new NIW adjudication framework.
The case involved Mr. Dhanasar, a researcher and educator in aerospace engineering. He filed an NIW petition as an EB-2 advanced degree professional, which was denied by the USCIS service center director under NYSDOT. Mr. Dhanasar appealed to the AAO, which not only approved his petition but used the case as an opportunity to completely rewrite the rules governing NIW adjudication.
It is worth noting that the AAO very rarely issues precedential decisions. In the 18 years following NYSDOT, the AAO issued only 7 precedent decisions related to NIW — a testament to the significance of Dhanasar.
NYSDOT vs. Dhanasar: A Side-by-Side Comparison #
| Dimension | NYSDOT (1998) | Dhanasar (2016) |
|---|---|---|
| First prong | The field has intrinsic merit | The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance |
| Second prong | The benefit must be national in scope | The petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor |
| Third prong | Must surpass U.S. workers | On balance, waiver is beneficial to the U.S. |
| Geographic requirement | Must be "national in scope" | Regional projects qualify if they have national importance |
| Comparison to U.S. workers | Must prove superiority over U.S. workers | No comparison to U.S. workers required |
| Entrepreneur applicability | Extremely unfriendly | Explicitly applies to entrepreneurs |
| Flexibility | Rigid with narrow applicability | Flexible, can be satisfied in multiple ways |
What Changed in 2025? The USCIS Policy Update as a Practical Roadmap #
On January 15, 2025, USCIS issued the most comprehensive NIW policy update in nearly a decade. The new guidance is now incorporated into the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5, and applies to all NIW petitions pending on or filed after January 15, 2025.
This update did not change the Dhanasar three-prong test itself, but for the first time provided a detailed roadmap for how adjudicators should apply the test in practice.
Key changes in the new policy:
- Threshold eligibility check upfront: Before evaluating the Dhanasar prongs, USCIS will first confirm whether the applicant meets the basic EB-2 eligibility requirement (advanced degree or exceptional ability)
- Recommendation letters must be corroborated by independent evidence: Statements in recommendation letters cannot stand alone — they must be supported by verifiable evidence such as publications, citations, or patents
- STEM critical technology priority: STEM doctoral candidates working in "critical and emerging technologies" receive particularly favorable consideration
- Refined entrepreneur framework: The 2022 entrepreneur-friendly framework has been retained and expanded, but specific evidence of entrepreneurial impact is now required
Prong 1: How Do You Prove Substantial Merit and National Importance? #
Breaking It Down #
The first prong contains two sub-requirements, both of which must be met:
1. Substantial Merit
Your proposed endeavor must have substantial merit. "Merit" can be demonstrated across multiple domains:
- Scientific and technological advancement
- Business and entrepreneurial innovation
- Public health and medicine
- Education and culture
- Economic development and job creation
Critical concept: Your proposed endeavor is not the same as your job title. Many applicants make the mistake of equating their proposed endeavor with their day-to-day work. Your proposed endeavor refers to the specific undertaking you plan to advance in the United States — it needs a clear objective, direction, and expected impact. For example, "I am an assistant professor at a university" is not a proposed endeavor. "Developing a machine learning-based drug screening platform to accelerate the discovery of treatments for rare diseases" is.
2. National Importance
Your proposed endeavor must have national importance to the United States. This is one of Dhanasar's most significant improvements over NYSDOT — the standard shifted from "national in scope" (geographic reach) to "national importance" (significance).
This means:
- Regional projects can qualify: As long as the underlying issue is a matter of national concern, or your solution can be replicated and scaled to other regions
- No need to prove direct economic impact: Pure basic science research and work that advances human knowledge can also have national importance
- Intrinsic value is what matters: Even if the direct scope of your work is limited, its intrinsic value to the nation is sufficient
What Evidence Supports Prong 1? #
| Evidence Type | Specific Examples | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Research plan | Detailed research direction, methodology, expected outcomes | Must be specific to your particular project, not a generic statement about the field's importance |
| Publications and citations | High-impact journal articles, widely cited work | Demonstrates your research direction has substantial academic value |
| Government priority documents | NIH/NSF/DOE strategic plans, congressional reports | Proves your field is a national priority |
| Industry reports | Market analyses, technology trend reports | Proves your work has practical application value |
| Recommendation letters | Expert evaluation of the national importance of your work | Must be supported by specific facts and data |
| Patents and technology transfer | Granted patents, licensing agreements | Demonstrates technology has commercial viability |
| Media coverage | Mainstream or industry media reporting | Shows your work has attracted broad attention |
What Does NOT Satisfy Prong 1? #
The 2025 policy update explicitly identifies situations that do not meet Prong 1:
The following typically do not satisfy Prong 1:
- Routine classroom teaching: Even if the subject is STEM, simply "teaching at a university" does not establish national importance
- Generic consulting for others: If your client's field has national importance but you are merely providing ordinary consulting services, that is insufficient
- Opening an ordinary business: Operating a restaurant, car dealership, or retail store — unless there are special circumstances — generally does not qualify
- Vague claims about the field's importance: You cannot argue "AI is important, therefore my AI work has national importance." You must be specific about your proposed endeavor
Prong 1 in Practice: Real Scenarios #
Scenario 1: Computer Science Postdoc
- Proposed endeavor: Developing a novel federated learning framework to resolve the tension between medical data privacy and AI model training
- Substantial merit: Methodological innovation + published papers + cited by peers
- National importance: Medical AI is a federal priority + data privacy is a national concern + the technology is applicable to multiple hospital systems
Scenario 2: Materials Science Researcher
- Proposed endeavor: Developing a novel solid-state electrolyte material to improve lithium battery energy density and safety
- Substantial merit: Multiple patents + experimental data demonstrating performance improvements + published in top journals
- National importance: Clean energy is a national strategic priority + battery technology relates to national security (electric vehicles, military applications) + DOE has listed it as a critical technology
Prong 2: How Do You Show You Are "Well Positioned"? #
Breaking It Down #
The second prong requires you to demonstrate that you have sufficient qualifications, capabilities, and resources to advance the proposed endeavor described in Prong 1. In other words, you must prove not only that your endeavor has value, but also that you are the person who can make it happen.
Important clarification: Dhanasar explicitly states that Prong 2 does not require the petitioner to prove the endeavor is "more likely than not" to succeed. This point is critical — you do not need to guarantee success. You only need to show that you have a reasonable foundation and conditions to advance the work. This is a "well positioned" standard, not a "guaranteed success" standard.
What Evidence Supports Prong 2? #
The 2025 policy update lists more than 15 types of evidence that can satisfy Prong 2. Here are the most commonly used:
Education and Professional Qualifications
Your degrees, professional certifications, and training experiences demonstrate a solid knowledge base in the field. Examples include:
- A doctoral degree in the relevant field
- Professional certifications (e.g., PE, CFA)
- Postdoctoral training at a distinguished institution
- Specialized skill certificates
Track Record and Past Achievements
Results you have already achieved that prove your ability to produce high-quality work in the field:
- Published papers and citation counts
- Research grants awarded
- Granted patents
- Significant projects and their outcomes
- Awards and honors
Future Plans and Resources
Your specific plan and available resources for advancing the endeavor in the United States:
- A detailed research plan or business plan
- Grants already received or currently under application
- Partner institutions and team members
- Laboratory facilities and equipment
- Existing industry partnerships
Third-Party Recognition
Evaluations and endorsements from authoritative figures in the field:
- Independent recommendation letters (focusing on your abilities and potential)
- Letters from U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities
- Professional association recognition
- Media coverage of your work
Common Mistakes in Prong 2 #
| Mistake | Correct Approach |
|---|---|
| Only listing degrees and publication records | Explicitly link your qualifications to the proposed endeavor |
| Vaguely claiming "I am capable" | Use specific data and achievements to prove your track record |
| Ignoring future plans | Provide a concrete, executable plan for advancement |
| Only internal recommendation letters | Must include independent recommenders' third-party evaluations |
| Not addressing U.S.-based plans | Clearly explain how you will advance this work in the United States |
Prong 2 in Practice: Real Scenarios #
Scenario 1: Biomedical Researcher
- Education: Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, postdoctoral training at Harvard
- Track record: 15 papers in Nature, Cell, Science sub-journals, 800+ total citations
- Resources: NIH R01 grant, independent laboratory at a research university
- Future plan: Translational clinical research, partnerships with 3 hospitals for clinical trials
- Third-party recognition: 4 independent recommendation letters from leading scholars, each providing detailed evaluation of research capabilities
Scenario 2: AI Entrepreneur
- Education: Ph.D. in Computer Science
- Track record: Prior research cited and adopted by Google, Meta, and other major companies
- Resources: $2 million in seed funding, accepted into a prominent accelerator
- Future plan: Expanding the team in the U.S., launching a commercial product, targeting 50 enterprise clients within 12 months
- Third-party recognition: Investor recommendation letters + client testimonials + industry media coverage
Prong 3: Why Is Waiving the Labor Certification "On Balance, Beneficial"? #
Breaking It Down #
The third prong is a "totality of circumstances" balancing test: considering all factors, is it in the interest of the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements?
This is the prong where Dhanasar differs most dramatically from NYSDOT. NYSDOT required applicants to prove they could serve the national interest to a "substantially greater degree" than a U.S. worker — an almost impossible task. Dhanasar eliminated this comparison requirement entirely, replacing it with a more reasonable "on balance" standard.
What Factors Does USCIS Consider Under Prong 3? #
Is Obtaining Labor Certification Impractical?
If the nature of your work makes the traditional job offer + labor certification path impractical or inapplicable, that weighs in favor of Prong 3. Common situations include:
- Self-employed entrepreneurs (no employer to file a labor certification on your behalf)
- Independent researchers or consultants
- Researchers engaged in cross-disciplinary, multi-institutional collaborations
Would the U.S. Benefit Even If Qualified Workers Are Available?
Even if other qualified U.S. workers could perform similar work, does your contribution still offer unique value? Consider whether your work involves:
- Irreplaceable specialized knowledge or skills
- A unique research perspective or methodology
- Specific industry connections or collaborative networks
Time Sensitivity
The PERM labor certification process typically takes 12-18 months or longer. If your work is time-sensitive, waiting for labor certification could cause harmful delays. This includes:
- Time-sensitive research projects
- Highly competitive technology sectors
- Grants or partnerships with firm deadlines
How Does the 2025 Policy Update Affect Prong 3? #
Key additions from the 2025 policy update for Prong 3:
- Special consideration for STEM doctoral candidates: Those working in Critical and Emerging Technologies or national security-related fields receive "particularly favorable consideration" under Prong 3
- Significant weight of government support letters: Letters from U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities explaining why the petitioner's work is urgently needed can carry "near-dispositive" weight
- No need to prove "harm" to national interests: Unlike NYSDOT, Dhanasar's third prong does not require proof that denying the waiver would harm national interests
Argumentation Strategies for Prong 3 #
Prong 3 is the most "abstract" of the three, but this also gives you the most room for persuasive argumentation. Here are proven strategies:
Strategy 1: Emphasize Your Uniqueness
Argue that your work cannot simply be replaced by any available U.S. worker. This is not about being "better" than others — it is about demonstrating that your specific combination of expertise, research perspective, industry connections, and existing achievements places you in a unique position.
Strategy 2: Argue the Impracticality of the Labor Certification Process
If the nature of your work (e.g., self-employment, multi-institutional collaboration, cross-disciplinary research) makes the traditional employer-employee model inapplicable, explain in detail why the PERM process would limit your contributions to the United States.
Strategy 3: Present the Time-Value Argument
If your field is rapidly evolving, argue that waiting through the PERM process (12-18 months or more) could cause the U.S. to lose a competitive advantage in that area. This is particularly effective in fast-moving fields such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology.
Strategy 4: Leverage Your Recommendation Letters
Have your recommenders directly address why waiving the labor certification is in the national interest. Perspectives from recommenders at U.S. government agencies, national laboratories, or major corporations carry extraordinary weight in Prong 3 adjudication.
Prong 3 in Practice: Real Scenarios #
Scenario 1: Postdoctoral Researcher Seeking an Independent Faculty Position
- Argumentation angles: (a) Academic hiring cycles are incompatible with the PERM timeline — faculty positions have limited windows, and missing one may mean waiting an entire year; (b) Your interdisciplinary research direction is pursued by only a handful of labs in the U.S., and PERM's prevailing wage survey cannot accurately reflect your market value; (c) You have NIH funding, and delayed arrival would jeopardize an already-approved project
Scenario 2: STEM Entrepreneur
- Argumentation angles: (a) As the company founder, no employer can file a labor certification on your behalf — the self-employment model makes PERM entirely inapplicable; (b) Your technology has been validated by venture capital and customers, and delay could close the market window; (c) Your company has already created 5 full-time positions, with plans to expand to 15 within 18 months
How Do the Three Prongs Work Together? #
Many applicants treat the three prongs as independent checkboxes — satisfying one, then moving to the next. In reality, the three prongs are deeply interconnected:
| Connection | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Prong 1 to Prong 2 | The more specific and valuable your proposed endeavor, the easier it is to prove you are well positioned to advance it (because you are already doing it) |
| Prong 2 to Prong 3 | The stronger your track record, the easier it is to argue the U.S. will benefit from your contributions |
| Prong 1 to Prong 3 | The greater the national importance of your endeavor, the easier it is to argue that waiving labor certification serves the national interest |
| Overall strategy | Evidence across all three prongs should reinforce and corroborate each other, forming a coherent, self-consistent narrative |
The core principle of materials preparation: When assembling your NIW petition, every piece of evidence should be tagged with the prong(s) it supports. This not only helps you organize your argument but also helps the adjudicator quickly understand your evidentiary structure. A single piece of evidence can support multiple prongs — in fact, the strongest evidence often spans all three.
What Do the Approval Rate Trends Tell Us About the Dhanasar Framework? #
NIW approval rates have declined steadily in recent years, directly tied to USCIS applying the Dhanasar standard with increasing rigor.
| Fiscal Year | Approval Rate | Denial Rate | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2022 | 95.7% | 4.3% | Historic high; relatively lenient adjudication |
| FY2023 | 79.6% | 20.4% | Noticeable tightening |
| FY2024 | 71% | 29% | Continued decline |
| FY2025 Q1 | 62.7% | 37.3% | Dropped to historic low |
| FY2025 Q2 | 67.3% | 32.7% | Slight rebound |
| FY2025 Q3 | 54% | 46% | Lowest on record |
These numbers reveal a hard truth: "roughly" meeting the Dhanasar prongs is no longer enough. In an environment where fewer than 60% of petitions are approved, your case must address each prong precisely, forcefully, and systematically.
It is also worth noting that STEM fields still enjoy relatively higher approval rates (approximately 91% in 2023), though even these began declining in 2025. Non-STEM fields — particularly business consulting — see denial rates of 40-60%.
What Are the Most Common Reasons for Denial? #
Common Prong 1 Failures #
- Vaguely defined proposed endeavor: Stating "I will continue doing research" without a specific direction
- Arguing the field's importance rather than the individual endeavor: Proving that AI is important is not the same as proving that your specific AI project has national importance
- Lack of third-party verification: No government documents, industry reports, or other independent evidence corroborating national importance
Common Prong 2 Failures #
- Evidence disconnected from the endeavor: Your publications and achievements do not match the proposed endeavor you have described
- Missing future plans: Presenting only past accomplishments without explaining how you will advance the work in the United States
- Poor quality recommendation letters: Letters that are generic, non-specific, and lack verifiable facts
Common Prong 3 Failures #
- Argumentation too brief or abstract: Many applicants devote the least space to Prong 3 — this is a strategic error
- No explanation of why PERM is impractical: The adjudicator will ask, "Why can't you go through the normal process like everyone else?"
- Lack of authoritative recommender support: Prong 3 particularly benefits from letters by officials at government agencies, national laboratories, or other authoritative institutions
Frequently Asked Questions #
Can I cite both Dhanasar and NYSDOT in my petition?
This is not recommended. Dhanasar has completely replaced NYSDOT and is the sole standard USCIS uses to adjudicate NIW petitions. Citing NYSDOT in your application materials is not only unhelpful but may signal to the adjudicator that your attorney or materials preparation is not up to date. You may briefly mention the evolution from NYSDOT to Dhanasar for context, but all argumentation should be based entirely on the Dhanasar framework.
Are the three prongs weighted equally? Is one more important than the others?
USCIS has not officially stated that any prong carries more weight — all three must be satisfied. However, in practice, Prong 1 (especially national importance) and Prong 3 (on balance beneficial) are the most common triggers for RFEs (Requests for Evidence) and denials. Prong 2 is generally the easiest to satisfy, because most applicants with doctoral degrees and publication records can demonstrate they are "well positioned." If you have a strong academic background, consider investing more effort in Prongs 1 and 3.
Does the 2025 policy update apply retroactively to previously filed petitions?
Yes. According to USCIS, the policy update released on January 15, 2025 applies to all NIW petitions pending on that date or filed thereafter. If your petition was filed in 2024 but has not yet been adjudicated, the new policy will apply. This means you may need to evaluate whether your application materials meet the new standards. If you receive an RFE, you should prepare supplemental materials in accordance with the updated guidance.
Can non-STEM applicants (business, arts, social sciences) still file for NIW?
Yes, but the difficulty has increased significantly. The Dhanasar framework does not restrict applicants by field, but the 2025 policy update explicitly gives favorable consideration to STEM critical technology fields. Non-STEM applicants must argue national importance more forcefully, provide stronger evidence of being well positioned, and invest extra effort in their Prong 3 argumentation. According to the latest data, non-STEM approval rates may be as low as 40-50% — but approval is not impossible. The key lies in the quality of your materials. For more details on evidence strategies, see our guide to NIW evidence types.
How can entrepreneurs satisfy Prong 2 without traditional academic achievements?
Entrepreneurs do not need traditional academic achievements to satisfy Prong 2. The 2025 policy update continues the entrepreneur-friendly framework. Entrepreneurs can demonstrate they are "well positioned" through: venture capital or angel investment records, accelerator acceptance, revenue growth data, jobs created, client contracts and testimonials, industry awards, media coverage, and recommendation letters from investors or industry leaders. The key is showing that your venture has achieved tangible progress (not just an idea) and that you have a clear path to continue advancing it. For entrepreneurs specifically, our NIW for entrepreneurs guide provides additional strategies.
Should recommendation letters address each prong separately or holistically?
The most effective approach is to have each letter focus on one or two prongs, while ensuring that all letters together cover all three. For example, academic recommenders might focus on Prongs 1 and 2 (the value of your research and your capabilities), while industry recommenders focus on Prongs 1 and 3 (real-world impact and the benefit of waiving labor certification). Avoid having every letter try to cover everything superficially — depth matters more than breadth. For detailed guidance on structuring recommendation letters, see our article on recommendation letter writing tips.
Conclusion #
The Dhanasar three-prong test is the absolute core of any NIW petition. Understanding this framework not only helps you prepare stronger materials but also enables you to evaluate the strength of your case before filing, identify weak spots, and strengthen them strategically.
In the increasingly strict adjudication environment of 2025, the following points are especially important:
- Make your proposed endeavor specific and precise: Do not describe your work in general terms. Focus on a concrete undertaking with clear value and national importance
- Build a complete and verifiable evidence chain: Every key claim should be supported by independent evidence. Recommendation letters and objective evidence must corroborate each other
- Craft a unified narrative across all three prongs: Do not treat the three prongs as isolated sections. Let them work together to tell a complete story of why you deserve the waiver
- Stay current with policy changes: USCIS adjudication standards continue to evolve. Ensure your materials align with the latest policy guidance
- Highlight STEM and critical technology advantages if applicable: The 2025 policy explicitly favors these fields
If you have questions about how the Dhanasar three-prong test applies to your specific situation, or need a professional evaluation of whether your NIW case meets the Dhanasar standard, contact GloryAbroad for a one-on-one consultation.