EB-2 NIW: How the 2025 USCIS Policy Manual Impacts Recommendation Letters

On January 15, 2025, USCIS published a set of clarifications in the Policy Manual that immediately reverberated throughout the community of attorneys and EB-2 NIW applicants. At first glance, the text appeared to codify understandings already present in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and in Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions, without introducing structural changes to the three-prong framework established in Matter of Dhanasar (2016). A closer reading, however, reveals subtle adjustments in language that directly affect the strategy for petition support letters. More than a year later, with the Policy Manual still in effect without significant revocations through April 2026, it is worth revisiting the nuances of this update.

The Vocabulary of NIW Letters

Before assessing the impact of the update, it is essential to establish the terminology, as imprecise use of these terms often causes confusion even in experienced immigration law offices.

Reference letter

This is a relatively neutral assessment of the petitioner’s competencies and character, written by someone inside or outside the applicant’s organization. When the author has no direct relationship with the petitioner, the letter tends to be treated as an expert opinion letter.

Expert opinion letter

This is the technical assessment provided by an independent expert with no personal or professional connection to the applicant. The document focuses on an objective evaluation of the relevance of the petitioner’s work to the field, not on a personal recommendation.

Recommendation letter

This is an explicit endorsement, typically written by someone close to the applicant, such as a direct manager or team colleague. By its nature, it carries greater subjective weight and lesser evidentiary value in USCIS’s eyes when viewed in isolation.

Each category carries a distinct degree of subjectivity, and understanding this difference helps in assembling a balanced evidence package.

What Changed in January 2025

The central point of the debate revolves around this passage from the Policy Manual, inserted in the discussion of Prong 2 (well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor):

Letters may be persuasive when they are from experts in the person’s field who have first-hand knowledge of the person’s achievements, describe those achievements, provide specific examples of how the person is well positioned to advance the person’s endeavor, and are supported by other independent evidence.

From this paragraph, rushed interpretations emerged claiming that the expert opinion letter had been summarily devalued by USCIS. That reading, however, overlooks two important facts.

The text does not invalidate the expert opinion letter

What the Policy Manual requires is specificity and the presentation of concrete examples from the petitioner’s field. The analysis of RFEs and AAO decisions over the past few years confirms what examiners had been signaling for some time: generic letters, written from templates, carry little evidentiary weight regardless of who signs them. The problem is not the external author; it is the empty content. A detailed expert opinion letter that cites the petitioner’s specific work, measures impact, and contextualizes the contribution within the field remains one of the most persuasive pieces in the package.

The paragraph applies specifically to Prong 2

The text is located in the section that assesses whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; it focuses on demonstrating past achievements that support future capacity. There is no indication that USCIS intends to extend the first-hand knowledge requirement to all three prongs. For Prong 1 (substantial merit and national importance), for example, an expert opinion letter from an independent specialist with no connection to the petitioner may be even more valuable precisely because it demonstrates that the impact of the work extends beyond the applicant’s immediate employment environment.

Recommended Strategy for the Letter Package

Combining the reading of the Policy Manual with the history of AAO decisions, several strategic principles have solidified for petitions filed in 2026.

Diversify your authors

Include a mix of senior professionals from within the organization (preferably two to three levels above the petitioner or from different divisions) and external experts with no connection to the applicant. This plurality demonstrates that recognition extends beyond the immediate circle of relationships.

Avoid relying solely on the direct supervisor

Letters signed exclusively by the immediate supervisor carry the stigma of bias. USCIS treats them with caution, and when they form the foundation of the package, the likelihood of an RFE increases considerably.

Specificity over praise

Each letter should describe concrete achievements, with project names, metrics, awards, publications, or patents. Phrases such as talented professional, leader in the field, or highly innovative researcher carry almost no weight. What persuades is verifiable detail: increased X by Y%, led a team of Z people on a project that resulted in W.

Back the letters with independent evidence

The Policy Manual reinforces that opinions must be corroborated by objective evidence. Isolated letters rarely carry petitions on their own. Combine them with peer-reviewed publications, citations in third-party articles, recognized field awards, specialized press coverage, patents, contracts, and formal peer reviews.

What Examiners Have Been Signaling

Analysis of AAO decisions published throughout 2025 and early 2026 confirms a consistent pattern: denied petitions tend to feature letters with recurring problems. The first is generality: texts that could apply to any professional in the field. The second is an imbalance between internal and external voices. The third is the absence of objective evidence to anchor the authors’ claims. When these three factors appear in combination, even strong resumes can result in denial.

Final Considerations for Petitioners

The January 15, 2025 Policy Manual Update did not eliminate the expert opinion letter from the EB-2 NIW toolkit. It reinforced a standard that was already taking shape: USCIS wants specificity, concrete examples, and objective evidence to support every claim. Petitions that treat the set of letters as merely decorative tend to fail. Petitions that build a coherent narrative, where letters, documentary evidence, and a career plan mutually reinforce one another, continue to receive approvals within reasonable timelines. The rule has not changed; what changed is the clarity with which USCIS expresses what it has always wanted to see in the process.

Victoria Harper

Editor-in-Chief

Meet the author

Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.