Matter of Dhanasar — the 3-prong framework for EB-2 NIW self-petitions

The proposed endeavor must have substantial merit AND national importance. These are two distinct tests: merit speaks to the quality of the endeavor itself; national importance asks how broadly its value reaches.

拟从事的事业必须同时具备实质价值与国家重要性。两者是相互独立的判断：实质价值看事业本身的质地，国家重要性看其影响范围。

• Substantial merit ≠ impact magnitude. The AAO clarified that 'merit' speaks to the quality of the endeavor — not to whether outcomes are guaranteed. Research that fails can still satisfy Prong 1.实质价值 ≠ 影响规模。AAO 明确"价值"指事业本身的质地，而非结果是否一定成功。失败的研究依然可以满足 Prong 1。
• National importance can be regional. Dhanasar expressly held that an endeavor's effects need not be nationwide — rural healthcare, regional STEM workforce development, and supply-chain-critical infrastructure all qualify.国家重要性可以是区域性的。Dhanasar 明确指出影响范围不一定要覆盖全国——乡村医疗、区域 STEM 劳动力培养、供应链关键基础设施都符合条件。
• Common qualifying domains: STEM research, healthcare access, climate technology, defense, education reform, semiconductor manufacturing, and critical-minerals supply.常见符合领域：STEM 研究、医疗可及性、气候科技、国防、教育改革、半导体制造、关键矿产供应。
• Required evidence: endeavor description and roadmap, industry/government reports framing the field's importance, news coverage tying your domain to U.S. policy priorities, white papers and authoritative market research.必要证据：事业描述与路线图、行业/政府报告说明该领域的重要性、把你的领域与美国政策优先级挂钩的新闻报道、权威白皮书与市场研究。

The petitioner must be well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The AAO reads this through five non-exhaustive factors and applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — not certainty of success.

申请人必须处于推动该事业的良好位置。AAO 通过五项（非穷尽）要素来判断，标准是 preponderance of the evidence（盖然性优势），而非要求结果确定。

• Factor 1 — Education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts.要素一 —— 学历、技能、知识，以及在相关或类似工作中的过往成就。
• Factor 2 — A model or plan for future activities. Specificity matters: 'I will continue research' is weak; named projects, milestones, and stakeholders are strong.要素二 —— 未来活动的模型或计划。具体性很关键："我会继续研究"是薄弱表述；列出具体项目、里程碑、合作方才有力。
• Factor 3 — Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor (publications, patents granted, products shipped, grants received, partnerships signed).要素三 —— 推进该事业的实际进展（已发表论文、已授予专利、已上线产品、已获得资助、已签署合作）。
• Factor 4 — Interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities (LOIs, contracts, citation by other researchers, media coverage).要素四 —— 潜在客户、用户、投资人或相关方的关注（合作意向书、合同、被其他研究者引用、媒体报道）。
• Factor 5 — Overall trajectory: even if no single factor is dominant, a coherent upward arc across factors satisfies the prong.要素五 —— 整体轨迹：即使没有单项压倒性优势，跨要素呈现的向上轨迹也能满足该 prong。
• Evidence: degrees and transcripts, publications and citation records, patents, awards, recognized contributions, employment record, and 4-8 independent recommendation letters.证据：学位与成绩单、发表论文与引用记录、专利、奖项、被业内认可的贡献、工作履历，以及 4-8 封独立专家推荐信。

The petitioner must show that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the standard EB-2 job-offer and PERM labor-certification requirements. This is a comparative analysis — not a re-litigation of Prongs 1 and 2.

申请人必须证明：综合权衡之下，豁免常规 EB-2 的雇主担保与 PERM 劳工证要求对美国有利。这是一个比较分析——不是把 Prong 1 和 Prong 2 再讨论一遍。

• Why is PERM impractical for this petitioner? Self-employment, novel role categories, urgent national need, or a record showing the petitioner exceeds available U.S. workers all support waiver.为什么 PERM 对该申请人不切实际？自雇、岗位类别新颖、国家紧急需求，或申请人超越美国本土可获工作者的记录，都是支持豁免的理由。
• Why does the U.S. lose by requiring labor certification here? Time-sensitive endeavors (climate, defense, public-health response) and unique skill profiles often satisfy this.如果坚持劳工证程序，美国会失去什么？时间敏感的事业（气候、国防、公共卫生应对）与独特技能组合通常能满足这一点。
• Common arguments: self-employment, urgency, irreplaceability of the petitioner's specific contribution, and the impracticability of recruiting a U.S. worker for an entrepreneurial or research-driven role.常见论证：自雇、紧迫性、申请人特定贡献的不可替代性，以及为创业型或研究驱动型岗位招聘本地工作者本就不可行。
• Evidence: comparative analysis brief, evidence the U.S. has urgent or unique need, demonstration that your contribution exceeds standard EB-2 candidates, employer letters explaining why a PERM-equivalent role does not exist (when applicable).证据：比较分析说明、美国具有紧迫或独特需求的证据、申请人贡献超出常规 EB-2 候选人的论证，以及（若适用）雇主说明对应 PERM 岗位并不存在的信件。