Evidentiary Weights of Recommendation Letter for NIW Application

The insights of an immigration lawyer dedicated to serving foreign-born talented
in Indiana and across the U.S.

Evidentiary Weights of Recommendation Letter

NIW/Evidence/Recommendation Letter

In evaluating National Interest Waiver (NIW) petitions, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) pays particular attention to the evidentiary weight of recommendation letters. While recommendation letters can provide valuable support for a petition, they are considered advisory in nature and do not automatically determine the outcome. The AAO carefully analyzes these letters in relation to the specific claims made by the petitioner and the other evidence in the record.

For a recommendation letter to carry significant evidentiary weight, it must provide detailed and specific information about the petitioner’s achievements and contributions to their field. General or vague praise reduces the effectiveness of the letter. Additionally, letters from highly recognized experts can add credibility, but only if the expert clearly explains how the petitioner’s work is exceptional and aligns with the broader goals of the U.S. In the case reviewed, the letters lacked sufficient details on how the petitioner’s work with plasma technology would have a meaningful national impact in the United States. The AAO noted that while the petitioner’s work had merit, the letters did not sufficiently demonstrate how this work would meet the national importance standard required under the Matter of Dhanasar framework.

In this case, the petitioner, an electromechanical engineer, applied for an EB-2 visa with a request for a national interest waiver based on his development of plasma technology for water, wastewater, and material treatment. The Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, and the AAO upheld the decision on appeal. The AAO determined that the petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, which is one of the critical prongs of the Dhanasar test.

The recommendation letters provided by the petitioner, while from respected individuals in the field, did not provide enough specific information about how the petitioner’s work would have a significant national impact. The letters praised the petitioner’s contributions in a general sense but lacked the necessary details to link his achievements directly to a national benefit for the U.S. Moreover, the AAO found that the letters did not align with the broader evidence in the record, further reducing their evidentiary weight.

Ultimately, while the petitioner demonstrated that his work had substantial merit, he did not meet the burden of proof to show that his endeavor would have national importance. Without establishing this critical factor, the AAO dismissed the appeal, as further discussion on the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework would not have changed the outcome. This decision highlights the importance of providing detailed, specific, and credible evidence when using recommendation letters to support a national interest waiver case.