Visa Engine
GuidelinesPricingSign inGet started
Visa Engine
TermsPrivacyNot legal advice.
GuideEB-2-NIWOn Balance, Waiver Benefits the United States
EB-2-NIW

On Balance, Waiver Benefits the United States

Dhanasar Prong 3 — why waiving job offer and PERM serves the national interest

Official Definition

Under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), the petitioner must demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and, accordingly, of a labor certification. USCIS weighs factors such as whether, in light of the person’s record of success and the nature of the national interest, the person’s endeavor and benefits are unlikely to be fully captured by the standard PERM process—i.e., whether the national interest is served even without testing the U.S. labor market for this specific role.

Prong 3 is not satisfied by repeating Prongs 1–2; it requires an explicit policy argument about why the waiver itself advances U.S. interests.

What Adjudicators Look For

Officers ask whether the benefits of your work are diffuse or structural—for example, advancing a field, public health, climate resilience, education access, economic competitiveness, or technology leadership—such that tying you to one employer and one job undervalues U.S. gain. The inquiry can contrast the purpose of PERM (protecting U.S. workers for a specific opening) with the nature of your contributions (often pre-competitive research, foundational technology, clinical innovation, policy-relevant science, or entrepreneurship with spillover effects).

Strong arguments are specific: they name mechanisms by which your flexibility (changing institutions, spinning out a company, collaborating across sectors) increases U.S. welfare compared to a single sponsored job. Weak arguments merely state you are “too talented” for labor certification without tying talent to uncapturable national benefit.

Evidence Strength

Strong Evidence

    Weak Evidence

      Common RFE Triggers

      Common RFE Triggers

      • No dedicated Prong 3 section in the petition—officers cannot infer the balance test from merit alone.
      • Conflating “hard to hire” with national interest; NIW is not a shortage waiver.
      • Employer-sponsored history presented without explaining why self-directed or multi-stakeholder work still warrants waiver.
      • Overbroad claims about economic impact unsupported by data or expert foundation.
      • Inconsistency with Prong 1 endeavor (if endeavor looks purely local, Prong 3 is harder to sustain).

      Tips

      Pro Tips

      • Draft Prong 3 as: (a) what PERM tests, (b) what you deliver, (c) why A and B misalign, (d) why U.S. gains more from waiving than from not waiving.
      • Use examples from your career where non-employer-bound activity produced measurable good.
      • For academics, discuss open science, multi-institution grants, or national facilities access where true.
      • For industry, discuss platform effects, standards, security, or workforce upskilling you enable.
      • Keep tone analytical—officers respond to logic and evidence, not slogans.

      Relevant Document Types

      Petition cover letter (Prong 3 subsection), expert opinion letters addressing waiver specifically, federal or industry strategy documents cited as context (with your mapping explained), white papers, patents, publications, press, grant scopes showing national missions, letters from government or nonprofit collaborators (where permissible), and Other proof that benefits extend beyond a single employer.

      Previous

      Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor

      Ready to check your evidence?

      Upload documents and get AI-powered analysis against this criterion.

      Create a case

      On this page

      • Official Definition
      • What Adjudicators Look For
      • Evidence Strength
      • Common RFE Triggers
      • Tips
      • Relevant Document Types