Last updated: October 2026. Checked against Matter of Dhanasar and the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 (current as of October 2, 2026).
EB2 NIW well positioned is Dhanasar’s second prong. It asks whether you are well positioned to advance the specific endeavor you proposed. USCIS weighs four factors: your education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a plan you developed or helped develop; progress toward the endeavor; and interest or support from potential customers, users, investors or other relevant parties. You do not have to prove the endeavor will more likely than not succeed. But in the Policy Manual’s words, “unsubstantiated claims would not meet the petitioner’s burden of proof.”
For the full three-part test, see our overview of the three prongs of EB-2 NIW. This guide covers prong 2 only: how officers weigh each factor, which evidence carries weight, typical RFE concerns and hypothetical framings.
Key takeaways
- Prong 1 is about the endeavor. Prong 2 “centers on the person,” according to the Policy Manual.
- Past achievements are not the only route. Dhanasar replaced an older test built around “influence on the field as a whole” and also counts plans, progress and outside interest.
- “A degree in and of itself” is not enough, although a STEM Ph.D. tied to the endeavor is “an especially positive factor.”
- Letters and business plans help only when “supported by other independent evidence.”
- “The more integral a person is to an endeavor, the stronger the case” that person presents. Your personal role in the work matters.
What prong 2 asks, and what it does not
In Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), the AAO says the second prong “shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.” The question is not whether the field is important (that is prong 1) but whether this person can move this endeavor forward.
Under the older NYSDOT framework, USCIS looked for “a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole.” Dhanasar says this “influence” standard had in practice become “the primary yardstick.” It also says experience had shown that “past achievements are not necessarily the best or only predictor of future success” for some talented people.
Dhanasar accepts that many endeavors “may ultimately fail, in whole or in part, despite an intelligent plan and competent execution,” so petitioners need not prove likely success. They must still show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are well positioned. Under that standard, Dhanasar (footnote 8) says USCIS weighs the “quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility)” of evidence, not just its quantity.
How officers weigh the EB2 NIW well positioned factors
The four factors come from Dhanasar (26 I&N Dec. at 890) and are restated in the Policy Manual and USCIS’s NIW filing tips. Officers consider “the totality of circumstances,” so the factors are weighed together rather than scored one by one.
| Factor | What the officer is checking | Stronger evidence | Weaker evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts | Whether your past results are in work like the endeavor | Documented outcomes in the same area: projects delivered, products used, research cited or adopted | General experience in a broad field; job titles without results |
| 2. A model or plan for future activities | Whether you developed, or “played a significant role in developing,” a concrete plan | A plan that ties to your background, names steps and resources, and is backed by independent documents | A plan that only restates goals; projections with no supporting source |
| 3. Progress toward the endeavor | Whether you have already started | Pilots, prototypes, early contracts, grants, filings, partnerships | Intent only, with nothing done yet |
| 4. Interest of potential customers, users, investors or other relevant entities | Whether people outside your circle care | Letters of intent, user or customer correspondence, investment, government interest | Praise from colleagues with no commitment behind it |
Three more Policy Manual rules shape the weighing:
- Your role matters. “The more integral a person is to an endeavor, the stronger the case” that person presents. If you worked on a team, the evidence should show what you did.
- Degrees are a start, not an answer. An advanced STEM degree, “particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.),” tied to the endeavor and to a critical and emerging technology (or another STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security) is “an especially positive factor.” But “a degree in and of itself” is “not a sufficient basis.”
- How you will carry it out. If you will not be self-employed, the Policy Manual says USCIS considers a job offer or communications with prospective employers, “while not required,” relevant to the “feasibility” of your plan (footnote 78).
EB2 NIW well positioned evidence: what carries weight
The Policy Manual’s prong 2 evidence list “is not meant to be a checklist”: no item is required, and none is enough alone. Each must connect to your prong 1 endeavor.
| Evidence (Policy Manual list) | What it can prove | What gives it weight |
|---|---|---|
| Degrees, certificates or licenses in the field | Knowledge and skills | A direct tie to the endeavor; on its own it is not sufficient |
| Patents, trademarks or copyrights you developed | A record of success and progress | Documentation of why the patent or license “is significant to the field” and how others use it |
| Published articles or media reports about your work | Recognition by others | Coverage of your specific achievements; the outlet’s reputation (the Policy Manual invites entrepreneurs to show it) |
| Citation history, positive discourse or adoption | Influence and uptake | “A strong citation history” or excerpts showing others discussing or adopting your work |
| A plan to continue the work in the United States | A model or plan for future activities | Corroboration by other evidence, such as a job offer, employer communications or customer interest |
| Correspondence from prospective customers, users, investors or other entities | Outside interest | Specific and from independent parties, not generic encouragement |
| Feasible plans for financial support; investment from U.S. investors | Resources to advance the endeavor | Amounts “appropriate to the relevant endeavor” |
| Awards, grants or non-monetary support (for example, free use of facilities) from government entities | Independent validation | Federal, state or local entities “with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation” |
| Letters from U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities | Government interest in your role | “Detailed letters” about how well positioned you are; not required |
| Evidence of how others use your work | Real-world impact | Contracts with companies using products you helped develop; documents showing how others use technology you invented |
The Policy Manual’s test for letters
Letters “may be persuasive” when they meet four conditions. They are from experts in your field who have first-hand knowledge of your achievements. They describe those achievements. They give “specific examples of how the person is well positioned.” And they “are supported by other independent evidence.” Footnote 103 adds that petitioners may submit evidence of the experts’ own credentials so officers can weigh the letter. General praise with no exhibits behind it fails the last condition. See recommendation letters for EB-2 NIW for structure.
Business plans need independent support
The Policy Manual calls business plans “useful in explaining the person’s objectives,” but says they “should be supported by other independent evidence.” Prong 2 asks for proof the plan is grounded: customers, funding, partners or progress already made.
What Dhanasar’s own prong 2 record looked like
The AAO found Dr. Dhanasar well positioned based on four things: multiple graduate degrees in relevant fields; experience developing computational models that supported Department of Defense missions; “detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest and investment in his research”; and documentation that he “played a significant role in projects funded by grants” from NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratories.
The key word is corroboration. The AAO said the significance of his research “is corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research, as well as by consistent government funding” of his projects. The letters did not stand alone; funding records and his documented role backed them up. That pattern works in any field.
Unsure whether your evidence corroborates your letters or just repeats them? Our free EB-2 NIW profile evaluation will point out the prong 2 gaps before an officer does.
Prong 2 for entrepreneurs and self-petitioners
The Policy Manual’s entrepreneur section is largely about prong 2 and applies to anyone self-petitioning through their own company:
- Ownership is not enough. Owning a company is relevant, but it “rarely establishes eligibility on its own.”
- General experience may fall short. In the Policy Manual’s example, someone whose banking experience is limited to working as a teller or accounts manager may not be well positioned to run a consulting business advising U.S. banks nationally.
- Investment must fit the venture. Investment or a binding commitment to invest, “consistent with industry standards,” may provide independent validation. USCIS considers how much capital the endeavor needs.
- Incubators and accelerators count. Officers may treat admission as an endorsement, and you may show the program’s past success.
- Growth metrics need your contribution. Revenue growth or U.S. jobs created help when your part in them is shown.
- Forecasts need a record behind them. Strong petitions show how your record of success “would translate to a proposed plan or forecast,” and USCIS “would also welcome” probative evidence on market size and share, job creation and revenue growth.
How prong 2 RFEs are typically worded
Every RFE must state the unmet requirement and “why the evidence submitted is insufficient,” according to the Policy Manual (Volume 1, Part E, Chapter 6). The concerns below paraphrase the Policy Manual’s prong 2 standards, which NIW RFEs tend to follow; they are not quotes from any particular RFE.
| Concern, as an RFE typically frames it | What it usually means | Where a response usually goes |
|---|---|---|
| The record contains assertions that are not supported by documentary evidence | The petition letter claims more than the exhibits show | Match each claim to a document; drop claims that cannot be documented |
| The letters do not provide specific examples or are not corroborated by independent evidence | Letters are generic or written by people without first-hand knowledge | Independent exhibits the letters can point to; letters from people who saw the work directly |
| The petitioner’s past achievements are not shown to relate to the proposed endeavor | Experience is in the general field, not the specific work proposed | Evidence connecting specific past results to the endeavor filed |
| The petitioner’s role in the cited projects is unclear | Team results are presented with no individual contribution shown | Documentation of your specific role, such as authorship, project records or supervisor statements |
| The business plan’s projections are not supported | Revenue or hiring figures have no independent basis | Customer, investor or market evidence behind each figure |
| The record does not show progress or interest from relevant parties | Only intentions were filed | Evidence of steps taken and outside interest that existed when you filed |
Eligibility must exist when you file, and RFEs are not issued to “cure” a deficiency, so progress made only after filing generally cannot fill the gap. Our EB2 NIW RFE response guide covers deadlines and structure.
Weak vs strong prong 2 framing (hypothetical)
These examples are hypothetical and simplified. They are not templates and do not predict any outcome.
| Profile (hypothetical) | Weak framing | Stronger framing |
|---|---|---|
| Industry engineer, few publications | “I have 8 years of experience and a master’s degree, so I am well positioned.” | Names two systems the engineer designed that are now in use, attaches deployment records and a supervisor statement on their individual role, and links them to the endeavor. |
| Early-career researcher | “My supervisor says I am talented.” | Shows grant-funded projects where the researcher had a documented lead role, independent citations or adoption of their method, and a research plan tied to that work. |
| Public health professional | “I am passionate about improving health outcomes.” | Documents a program they designed and ran, outcome data, and a letter from an outside agency interested in expanding it. |
| Founder | “I own 100% of my company and have a business plan.” | Adds signed customer agreements, investment sized to the plan, accelerator admission, and a forecast built on those numbers. |
Keeping prong 2 aligned with prongs 1 and 3
- Same endeavor throughout. Prong 2 evidence counts only if it shows you can advance the prong 1 endeavor; a strong record in unrelated work will not carry it.
- Prong 3 builds on prong 2. For prong 3, the Policy Manual treats an advanced STEM degree, work furthering a critical and emerging technology, and being “well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance” as a combined “strong positive factor.”
How Skycap helps with prong 2
Skycap Consultancy is a petition-preparation consultancy, not a law firm. We do not give legal advice or represent anyone before USCIS. We help turn your record, plans, progress and outside interest into an exhibit-backed prong 2 argument. Our strategic recommendation letter service ($50 per letter) drafts letters for your recommenders to review, edit and sign based on their own first-hand knowledge. For complex legal questions, consult a licensed immigration attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor” mean?
It means the evidence shows you personally can move the endeavor forward, judged from your record, plan, progress and outside interest. USCIS does not require proof the endeavor will succeed.
Does a Ph.D. prove prong 2?
Not by itself. A STEM Ph.D. tied to the endeavor is “an especially positive factor,” but the Policy Manual says a degree “in and of itself” is not sufficient.
Do I need publications or citations?
No. Citation history is one item on a non-exhaustive list. Patents, contracts, evidence of how others use your work, funding and customer interest also count. See how many citations are required for EB2 NIW.
Do I need a job offer for prong 2?
No. If you will not be self-employed, the Policy Manual says a job offer or communications with prospective employers are “not required” but are relevant to how and in what capacity you will carry out the endeavor.
How many recommendation letters does prong 2 need?
Neither the regulation nor the Policy Manual sets a number. The Policy Manual focuses on content: first-hand knowledge, specific examples, and support from independent evidence.
Want to know how your prong 2 evidence holds up? Our free profile evaluation maps your record against the four Dhanasar factors.
Related guides
This article is general information, not legal advice. Skycap Consultancy is a petition-preparation consultancy, not a law firm. Requirements and fees change; check the linked USCIS pages before filing.
