The NIW for Researchers and Scientists

Why Researchers Fit the National Interest Waiver

The precedent decision that defines the NIW was a researcher's case. The petitioner in Matter of Dhanasar was "a researcher and educator in the field of aerospace engineering," a postdoctoral research associate when he filed, and the Administrative Appeals Office approved his petition under the new three-prong test it announced in that decision.

The decision is also direct about research as an endeavor. Merit does not depend on money: "endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States." National importance can rest on "national or even global implications within a particular field." The USCIS Policy Manual adds that an advanced degree, particularly a PhD, in a STEM field tied to the endeavor is an especially positive factor under the second prong.

None of that makes a research petition automatic. The same decision denied part of the petitioner's case, and USCIS guidance since 2022 and 2025 has sharpened what a research endeavor must show. This page uses Dhanasar's own facts to explain what worked, what did not, and how a researcher's record is organized under each prong.

The Dhanasar Case Itself

The petitioner held two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, and a PhD in engineering, all from North Carolina A&T State University, where he worked as a postdoctoral research associate. His research concerned hypersonic propulsion systems and computational fluid dynamics. He had developed a validated computational model of a high-speed air-breathing propulsion engine and a new numerical method for calculating hypersonic air flow, and he proposed to continue that research and to teach aerospace engineering.

What the AAO credited

The record that carried the petition had these parts:

• Reliable evidence of his credentials.
• Copies of his publications and of other published materials that cited his work.
• Evidence of membership in professional associations.
• Documentation of his research and teaching activities.
• Letters from people who established their own expertise in aerospace, described his research in detail and attested to his expertise.
• Letters from "individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry" on the importance of hypersonic propulsion research to U.S. strategic interests.
• Media articles and other evidence of the House Committee on Armed Services' interest in hypersonic technologies.
• Documentation that he played a significant role in projects funded by NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory. Although a center director was the lead investigator on the grants, the record showed the petitioner initiated or was the primary award contact on several funded proposals and the only listed researcher on many.

How the three prongs were decided

On prong one, the research had substantial merit because it aimed "to advance scientific knowledge and further national security interests and U.S. competitiveness in the civil space sector," and national importance because the letters and articles showed the strategic significance of U.S. advances in hypersonics for missiles, satellites and aircraft. On prong two, his degrees, his research experience, "the significance of his role in research projects," and "the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL" positioned him well. On prong three, because of "his record of successful research in an area that furthers U.S. interests," his contributions would benefit the United States "even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available."

What did not work

The petitioner also proposed to teach STEM subjects and mentor middle school students. The AAO agreed that STEM teaching has substantial merit, but the record did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he "would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly," so that part of the endeavor failed the national importance element. The lesson for every research petition: each part of the endeavor must be supported, and an activity that benefits only your own students, lab or institution needs evidence of wider impact or should be left out of the endeavor statement.

Prong One for Research: Merit Is the Easy Part

Research almost always has substantial merit. The work is in showing national importance, and the first step is to describe the endeavor correctly. "Researcher" is an occupation; the endeavor is the research agenda: the questions, the methods, the expected results and who will use them. The Policy Manual asks for "the specific projects and goals."

National importance is "potential prospective impact." For research that usually means showing who, beyond your own institution, acts on the results: other labs that build on the findings, clinicians who change practice, companies that adopt a method, agencies that fund the problem, standards that incorporate the work. Research tied to critical and emerging technologies, or to national security, is weighed heavily; the Policy Manual says the benefit "is especially weighty where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security" or competitiveness.

Two cautions from the guidance. Benefits to one employer alone are not enough, so a research program framed only as serving your university or company falls short. And the endeavor must connect to the degree or exceptional ability that qualifies you for EB-2; since January 2025 USCIS checks that relationship case by case.

Prong Two: What Your Record Has to Show

The second prong asks whether you, specifically, are positioned to advance the endeavor. Dhanasar lists the factors: "education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals." You do not have to prove the research will succeed.

Publications and citations

Publications show the record; citations show that others in the field engaged with it. No regulation sets a number of citations, and USCIS judges the whole record, so context matters more than a count: which venues, who cites the work and for what, whether the citing authors are independent of you, and whether the findings were used rather than merely mentioned. A short publication list with evidence of real use can outweigh a long one with none.

Funding, roles and progress

Grants and contracts matter twice: as evidence that funders found the work promising, and as evidence of your role. Dhanasar credited the petitioner because the record showed what he did on the funded projects, not because his institution received grants. Progress toward the endeavor, such as preliminary results, prototypes, datasets, software released, or protocols adopted, is its own factor.

Letters

Letters "may be persuasive when they are from experts in the person's field who have first-hand knowledge" of your work and are "supported by other independent evidence." The strongest research letters explain a specific contribution, how the writer knows it, and how the field used it. Letters from people outside your institution and your co-author circle, and letters from government agencies or quasi-governmental bodies, add weight. Letters that restate your CV in admiring terms add little, and a degree by itself does not show you are well positioned.

Prong Three for Researchers

The third prong weighs the waiver against the labor certification's purpose of protecting U.S. workers. For researchers the factors Dhanasar names often line up: the specific expertise that a labor certification's minimum job requirements cannot capture, a benefit to the United States "even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available," and urgency where the research bears on national security, public health or competitiveness. The Policy Manual's strong positive factor, an advanced STEM degree plus an endeavor in a critical and emerging technology or another STEM area important to competitiveness or national security plus a well-positioned petitioner, is written for exactly this profile. A labor shortage in your field, by itself, does not satisfy this prong.

Early-Career Researchers and Postdocs

Dhanasar's petitioner was a postdoc, and the decision rejected the idea that only a long record can predict future contribution: "there are some talented individuals for whom past achievements are not necessarily the best or only predictor of future success." For an early-career researcher the plan and the progress carry more of the weight, alongside the quality of the training, the significance of the role played on funded or published work, and the interest of others in the results. A PhD in a STEM field tied to the endeavor is an especially positive factor.

Researchers in industry, government laboratories and nonprofits use the same analysis. Contracts, deployed results and letters from agencies or companies that use the work take the place of some academic markers, and letters from interested government agencies can be relevant to all three prongs.

Visa timing is the other half of planning. Researchers born in India or mainland China face the longest EB-2 waits; in the October 2026 Visa Bulletin the EB-2 Final Action Date was November 1, 2013 for India and October 1, 2021 for China. Some researchers file the NIW now, which fixes a priority date that carries over to a later EB-1A petition, and build toward EB-1A as the record grows. See NIW versus EB-1A.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many citations do I need for an NIW?

There is no number in the statute, the regulation or the Policy Manual. USCIS weighs the whole record by a preponderance of the evidence, and what citations show is that others in the field engaged with your work. Who cites you, whether they are independent, and whether they used your findings matter more than a total. Dhanasar's petitioner was approved on publications, citing materials, funded projects and detailed letters taken together.

Do I need a PhD for a research NIW?

No. You need to qualify for EB-2 through an advanced degree, which includes a master's degree or a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty, or through exceptional ability. A PhD in a STEM field tied to the endeavor is an especially positive factor under the second prong, not a requirement.

Can a postdoc or a recent graduate qualify?

Yes. The Dhanasar petitioner was a postdoctoral research associate. For an early-career researcher the plan, the progress so far, the significance of your role on published and funded work, and the interest of others in the results carry more of the weight.

I am rarely first author. Does that hurt?

Authorship order is not a legal criterion. What matters is evidence of your contribution: what you did on each project and how the field used it. Letters from collaborators and independent experts that explain your specific role, and documentation like the grant records credited in Dhanasar, address the point directly.

Do I need a job offer from a U.S. university or lab?

No. The waiver removes the job offer requirement, and a job offer is not required to show you are well positioned. Communications with prospective employers or collaborators can, however, help show that your plan is feasible.

Does my research have to be funded?

No single item of evidence is required. Funding was credited in Dhanasar as evidence of government interest and of the petitioner's role, but the prongs can be met with other evidence of merit, importance, record and plan. Unfunded research with demonstrated use in the field can qualify.

Working With Our Firm

Harry Asatrian handles EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions, including initial filings, responses to requests for evidence, and appeals after a denial. The firm represents researchers, physicians in underserved areas, engineers, entrepreneurs and public health professionals in NIW petitions, and Harry's approach is to document a client's achievements in full and frame the petition around a specific endeavor, in fields from academic research and medicine to technology, the arts and athletics.

Call (973) 735-2716 or use the contact form. Our office is at 72 South Maple Avenue, 1st Floor, Ridgewood, NJ 07450; NIW petitions are filed with USCIS, so the firm works with clients anywhere in the United States and abroad. Start with the EB-2 National Interest Waiver overview for the full picture of eligibility, the Dhanasar test, fees and visa timing.

Attorney Advertising. Nothing on this page is legal advice for your situation, and reading it does not make you a client of the firm. Results depend on the facts of each case, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Government fees, forms and visa dates change; the figures here are a dated snapshot with links to the official sources.