Being well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor does not mean guaranteeing future success or merely assembling a long résumé. The second EB-2 NIW prong examines the relationship between the person, their record, the plan, progress, and third-party support or interest, based on the totality of evidence.
Being well positioned in EB-2 NIW means showing that a person has concrete capacity to advance the professional endeavor or project they propose to develop in the United States. It is not a requirement to guarantee final success. Nor is it limited to presenting a long résumé, degrees, letters, or an ambitious plan.
The second Matter of Dhanasar prong considers factors such as education, skills, knowledge, a record of success in related efforts, a plan for future activities, progress already made, and interest or support from clients, users, investors, or other entities. USCIS examines these elements together and in relation to the specific project.
That connection is decisive. An achievement may be professionally relevant and still have little value in showing capacity to carry out a different endeavor. Likewise, a detailed proposal may explain objectives without proving that the person has experience, resources, support, or progress consistent with execution.
The first prong asks whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The second asks what shows that this person is positioned to advance that work.
This shift prevents two shortcuts. A sector’s importance does not prove individual capacity. And a distinguished résumé does not, by itself, prove that the proposed endeavor has national importance. The prongs relate, but answer different questions.
The analysis therefore needs a well-defined endeavor. If the project is described only as “work in technology” or “contribute to health,” there is not enough reference to assess whether education, experience, and other evidence truly support its execution.
Degrees, certificates, licenses, training, and technical competencies may demonstrate preparation. Each item’s weight depends on what the person intends to do.
Advanced training in the same field may show technical command. A license may be necessary to perform a regulated activity. Interdisciplinary knowledge may matter where the project combines fields. None of these items, however, is automatic approval.
The same document may serve different functions. A degree may help establish the EB-2 classification basis and also give context for the second prong. It does not remove the need to explain how the training prepares the person for specific work or resolve the other NIW prongs.
Matter of Dhanasar cites a record of success in related or similar efforts. “Related” is important: USCIS does not examine the past only to reward a career; it looks for signs that the person can advance the future endeavor.
Completed projects, documented results, publications, adoption of methods, leadership, developed products, critical responsibilities, awards, or recognition may be relevant. The petition needs to explain:
what the person did
what their actual role was
what result or progress was documented
how that experience connects to the U.S. project
A list of positions or honors without that bridge may show prestige, but not necessarily positioning for the proposed endeavor.
A plan may clarify objectives, steps, audience, partners, resources, timeline, and means of execution. It helps turn a broad intention into an understandable proposal.
USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03 also states a limit: business plans and similar descriptions must be supported by other independent evidence. A document does not prove its own projections merely because it presents numbers and goals in detail.
This does not mean every person needs a business plan. Academic research, professional activity, or an institutional project may be explained by documents suited to its nature. The point is that future objectives need support in verifiable facts.
Progress toward the endeavor is another Dhanasar factor. Depending on the project, it may appear in prototypes, completed studies, agreements, licenses, pilots, obtained resources, partnerships, initial results, contracts, user adoption, or other documented steps.
Not every endeavor will be at the same stage. A recent project may still have relevant technical basis, planning, and support. The analysis does not require completed activity; it seeks to understand whether there is a plausible path from intent to execution.
Progress must also be interpreted carefully. Opening a business, registering a patent, or signing a document can be a real step, but does not alone show the feasibility of every projection or the endeavor’s national importance.
Clients, users, investors, institutions, partners, government agencies, or other entities may show interest or support. Such evidence may help show demand, utility, resources, infrastructure access, or confidence in the person’s capacity.
Content matters more than its label. A generic statement of support has different value from a contract, funding, a letter describing direct knowledge of results, or evidence that third parties already use developed work.
PA-2025-03 cites, among other examples:
monetary or nonmonetary support from relevant government entities
contracts with companies that use products developed by the person
documents showing use of technology they invented or helped develop
patents or licenses accompanied by proof of their relevance to the field
These examples are not a mandatory list. The endeavor’s nature determines which signs of interest and support make sense.
Letters from experts or entities may explain the person’s contribution, role in projects, and connection between achievements and future work. USCIS guidance indicates they can be persuasive when authors:
have direct knowledge of the accomplishments
describe them specifically
explain with examples why the person is well positioned
support conclusions with independent evidence
A letter that merely repeats legal standards or praises a résumé tends to clarify less. Quantity does not solve a lack of content. Value lies in factual basis, specificity, and connection to other evidence.
Letters are always evaluated within the record. They may contextualize technical documents or explain a role that is not clear in a contract, publication, or record. They should not be treated as an automatic substitute for those documents.
Matter of Dhanasar recognizes that forecasting viability and future success is difficult. Innovations and business initiatives may fail despite intelligent planning and competent execution. The precedent therefore does not require proof that, in the end, the endeavor is more likely than not to achieve all objectives.
The limit is equally important: uncertainty does not eliminate the burden of proof. The person still must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are well positioned to advance the project. Unsupported assertions are insufficient.
In practice, the analysis does not ask “is success guaranteed?” It asks whether education, record, plan, progress, and documented support make it more likely that the person is prepared to move the endeavor forward.
PA-2025-03 directs officers to consider the totality of circumstances. Dhanasar also relates preponderance not only to quantity, but to the evidence’s quality, relevance, credibility, and probative value.
In the precedent itself, related academic degrees, research experience, model development, significant project roles, detailed letters, peer and public-agency interest, and repeated government funding reinforced one another. The decision did not turn any isolated fact into a universal rule.
A consistent analysis therefore avoids seeking the “strongest document” out of context. It asks:
What aspect of the person’s capacity does each document show?
Is the information specific, verifiable, and consistent with the other evidence?
Does the fact relate to the proposed endeavor or only to the profession generally?
Do future projections have independent corroboration?
No official source establishes that any one of these elements alone resolves the second prong:
degree or academic title
many years of experience
leadership position
publication, citation, or patent
award or professional association
business plan
business opened in the United States
recommendation letter
contract or expression of interest
promise of future results
Each item may have value when authentic, relevant, and linked to the endeavor. The conclusion arises from the record, not the mechanical presence of an item.
The second prong does not replace the others. The endeavor must still have substantial merit and national importance. The petition must then show that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification.
It is also necessary to establish EB-2 eligibility first. Even where all three prongs are shown, an NIW grant remains discretionary.
Thus, “well positioned” should not be read as synonymous with an exceptional résumé, a guaranteed project, or likely approval. It is a specific evidentiary conclusion about capacity to advance an equally specific endeavor.
U.S. immigration attorney with 15+ years representing international professionals, executives and investors.
The first EB-2 NIW prong contains two different questions. Substantial merit concerns the value of the proposed endeavor. National importance examines its prospective impact and broader implications. Learn why a profession’s relevance, an employer’s reach, or a worker shortage do not resolve that analysis on their own.
In EB-2 NIW, the proposed professional endeavor or project describes what a person intends to do in the United States, how they intend to advance that work, and the impact they project. A résumé can help demonstrate capacity, but it does not replace that definition—and the concept does not require starting a business.
Ser médico não garante o EB-2 NIW. A análise precisa conectar a base EB-2, a atuação ou o projeto profissional específico nos Estados Unidos, os três critérios do NIW e evidências coerentes. Entenda também por que o NIW geral e a modalidade estatutária para certos médicos não são a mesma coisa.
