EB-2 NIW: How the USCIS Policy Manual Changed the Rules on Recommendation Letters

On January 15, 2025, the USCIS Policy Manual received the most detailed update the EB-2 National Interest Waiver program had seen since the AAO’s decision in Matter of Dhanasar in 2016. The changes did not rewrite the Dhanasar three-prong framework, but codified interpretations that had already been surfacing in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Administrative Appeals Office decisions. In 2026, a careful reading of these updates is what separates first-round approvals from petitions that receive an RFE or denial.

This article analyzes the practical implications for building the letter package — reference, expert opinion, and recommendation letters — that underpin most NIW petitions. The discussion avoids absolute positions: the claim that independent expert letters had become obsolete circulated in forums during the first half of 2025, but finds no basis in the manual’s text or in AAO decisions published since then.

What Changed in the Policy Manual

The update is found in USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5. The three prongs remain the same as defined in Matter of Dhanasar:

1. The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance
2. The petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor
3. It is, on balance, beneficial to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements

What the update refines is the type of evidence considered persuasive for each prong, and two points deserve attention. First, the manual reinforces that national importance does not require broad geographic impact — endeavors with effects concentrated in specific communities may qualify if they demonstrate importance to the United States as a whole. Second, the manual describes the evidentiary burden expected for each prong with more granularity than before, making clear that isolated circumstantial evidence (letters without documentary support) is rarely sufficient.

Types of Letters and Their Weight

NIW petitions typically combine three types of letters, and the vocabulary used by the immigration community is not always consistent. An operational distinction helps when planning who will write each letter.

Reference letter

A relatively neutral assessment of skills, qualifications, and contributions, which may come from someone inside or outside the petitioner’s organization. When it comes from someone who does not know the petitioner personally — typically a specialist contacted to provide an opinion — the letter is treated in practice as an expert opinion, even if the author calls it a reference letter.

Expert opinion letter

A letter written by a recognized expert in the petitioner’s field who has no direct personal or professional connection to the petitioner. The value of this document lies in its independent voice: the author assesses the impact and relevance of the endeavor based on their expertise, not their relationship with the petitioner. Most NIW petitions rely on three to five expert opinions from researchers, executives, or professional association leaders in the U.S.

Recommendation letter

An explicit endorsement written by someone close to the petitioner: a direct manager, doctoral supervisor, or partner. It carries a strong subjective component, and USCIS traditionally assigns less weight to this type of letter on its own, precisely because of the natural bias of someone who works with the petitioner.

The 2025 Policy Manual update does not declare any of these letter types obsolete. What the manual does is raise the quality standard required: letters must be specific, anchored in verifiable examples, and supported by independent documentary evidence — papers, patents, awards, citation reports, contracts.

The Paragraph That Sparked Debate

The passage that prompted conflicting interpretations appears in the discussion of prong 2 and states that letters can be persuasive when they come from experts in the petitioner’s field with direct knowledge of their achievements, describe those achievements, provide specific examples of how the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and are supported by independent evidence.

A hasty reading concluded that ‘direct knowledge of achievements’ would invalidate expert opinion letters, since external experts by definition do not work directly with the petitioner. This reading overlooks two key points.

First, the manual cites direct knowledge as a factor that increases persuasiveness — not as a prerequisite for admissibility. Letters from people without direct contact are still accepted; what matters is the specificity of the content. An expert opinion letter with detailed examples of the endeavor’s impact in the field, citing the petitioner’s specific publications and contextualizing those contributions within the technical literature, is more persuasive than a generic recommendation letter from a direct supervisor.

Second, the paragraph falls within the discussion of prong 2, which evaluates whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor. This prong examines track record — what the petitioner has already accomplished. It is natural for USCIS to value accounts from close witnesses for this specific purpose. Prong 1, which evaluates substantial merit and national importance of the endeavor itself, benefits from precisely the opposite: external voices confirming the topic’s relevance to the country.

Strategy for the Letter Package

The strongest letter package in 2026 combines authors from three distinct circles.

Inner circle: one to two letters from supervisors (ideally two or more levels above) or senior peers in other divisions of the same organization. Purpose: to document direct knowledge of the petitioner’s contributions, addressing the manual’s explicit point on prong 2.

Known external circle: two to three letters from researchers, executives, or consultants who have previously interacted with the petitioner in collaborative projects, conferences, or committees. Purpose: an independent voice with a concrete basis for evaluating the work.

Independent external circle: one to two letters from recognized experts with no prior connection to the petitioner. Purpose: to assess the national importance of the endeavor (prong 1) with the credibility that comes from complete independence.

For all three circles, three rules apply. Letters must describe specific activities naming projects, papers, patents, or products. They must explain how those contributions connect to the proposed endeavor. And they must be accompanied by independent documentary evidence — it is not enough for the letter to say the petitioner published a high-impact paper; the paper, its citations, and the journal’s metrics must be on the record.

Common Errors That Show Up in RFEs

A systematic review of RFEs and AAO decisions published after January 2025 reveals three recurring patterns that undermine petitions.

The first is the generic letter. Text that could have been written about any professional in the same field, without mentioning projects, dates, or numbers. USCIS has responded particularly poorly to letters that appear to have been produced from a template — differing only in the petitioner’s name and signature.

The second is the unsupported letter. The letter claims the petitioner leads a $50 million project, but the record includes no contract, press release, or internal communication confirming the figure. Under the ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard, USCIS can discard an unsupported claim.

The third is source imbalance. Petitions composed solely of internal letters (five direct supervisors from the same employer) typically receive an RFE requesting an independent voice. Petitions relying only on expert opinions from distant specialists receive an RFE requesting evidence of concrete achievements — precisely the point the 2025 updated manual reinforces.

The Weight of Objective Evidence

The updated Policy Manual makes clear that letters, however well written, complement but do not replace objective documentary evidence. For prong 2, this means every relevant claim in a letter must be supported: listed awards need a certificate attached; cited publications must be on the record with citation metrics; mentioned patents must include a USPTO registration number.

For prong 1, objective evidence of national importance includes government reports (BLS, NSF, DOL) documenting demand in the field, public statements from federal agencies about the area, market metrics, and the sector’s economic impact.

The I-140 petition with an NIW request costs $715 in USCIS fees under the fee schedule in effect since 2024, and processing time ranges from eight to sixteen months depending on the service center. Premium processing is available for an additional $2,805 with a 45-business-day timeline. Investing time in building the right letter package, with robust documentary evidence, is more valuable than saving on fees — the difference between a direct approval and an RFE can mean six additional months in the petitioner’s timeline.

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.