The Rise of “Dhanasar Plus”: How USCIS Has Quietly Raised the EB-2 NIW Standard

USCIS is quietly changing the rules for the National Interest Waiver. This is how we push back. | Adobe

By Helen Partlow, Managing Attorney at Waypoint Immigration USA

When the Dhanasar decision was issued in 2016, it modernized the EB-2 National Interest Waiver framework. It replaced the outdated NYSDOT test with a clearer three-prong standard that focused on substantial merit, national importance, and whether the applicant is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. If those three prongs were met, the final question became whether, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirement.

That is the official standard. But in daily practice, those of us working on EB-2 NIW petitions are seeing something else entirely.

In 2025, USCIS appears to be applying a new, unofficial version of the standard. Let’s call it “Dhanasar Plus.”

Although Dhanasar does not require applicants to demonstrate impact, officers often ask for it anyway. In fact, the decision explicitly states that while evidence of impact may be favorable, it is not required. Nonetheless, RFEs frequently request proof that the applicant’s work has already made a difference in the United States or that there are tangible outcomes from their efforts. Arguing the legal standard often leads nowhere. Officers expect to see it, so we include it, whether or not the law demands it.

Another layer of this “plus” standard is the request for a detailed explanation of how the applicant will pursue the endeavor. This includes step-by-step plans and execution details that go far beyond what Dhanasar or the policy manual calls for. The Dhanasar framework is meant to be forward-looking and focused on potential. Yet officers routinely issue RFEs stating that there is no indication of “exactly how” the applicant will proceed. There is no such requirement in the law, but experience has taught us to include this information anyway to preempt confusion.

There is also growing pushback from officers when the proposed endeavor is framed as simply continuing in the applicant’s current field or job. While the Dhanasar decision itself accepted this as a valid approach, after all the petitioner was a researcher who planned to continue conducting research, in practice, this framing often raises red flags. If the endeavor appears to be a static continuation of existing work, with no clear direction for growth, expansion, or future impact, officers may interpret it as complacency rather than a compelling national interest. It is not necessarily the idea of continuity that is problematic, but rather how it is presented. To be persuasive, the endeavor must still reflect forward momentum, evolving goals, and alignment with broader U.S. priorities.

In addition, we are seeing officers apply standards from other immigration categories. For example, RFEs sometimes request certified labor certifications, which have no place in an NIW case. Other times, officers reject professional memberships as irrelevant, even though the USCIS policy manual includes them as a recognized factor in establishing exceptional ability. Some RFEs even contain text that was clearly copied and pasted from unrelated templates, referencing facts that have nothing to do with the applicant’s actual field.

The result is that attorneys and applicants are no longer operating under a fixed standard. Instead, we are navigating a shifting set of expectations that depends on which officer happens to be reviewing the case. The problem is not always stricter interpretation but rather inconsistent and often arbitrary demands that go well beyond the scope of Dhanasar.

So, what can we do?

We adapt. We submit stronger filings with more detail. We describe the proposed endeavor in depth and outline how it will be pursued. We provide both potential and existing indicators of impact. We reference relevant policy manual excerpts and, when appropriate, cite executive orders or emerging national priorities. In short, we prepare our filings for the real-world adjudication environment, not just the legal theory.

This is the reality of NIW practice today. Dhanasar remains the law, but the standard being applied is something else entirely. By understanding what officers are REALLY looking for and anticipating these unofficial expectations, we can help our clients navigate the process more effectively.

If you are seeing these same patterns, or finding ways to successfully push back, I would love to hear how you are approaching this landscape.