Objection catalog
Why petitions fail
The reasons officers give most often, grouped by the legal test. Each one links to the Policy Manual text, real examples, and what tends to answer it.
Counting 4,535 decisions: Every NIW decision under the current test, including motions and rejections.
Step 0 · EB-2 eligibility
- Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent
The foreign degree or credential evaluation did not establish U.S. master's-level (or higher) equivalence.
5.7% of decisions260 raised · 0 sustained · 38 remanded - Five years of progressive experience not documented
For bachelor's-plus-experience claims, the post-degree experience was not shown to be 5 years, progressive, or in the specialty.
7.0% of decisions316 raised · 0 sustained · 33 remanded - Exceptional ability not established
Fewer than three regulatory criteria were met, or the final merits review found no expertise significantly above the ordinary.
9.7% of decisions442 raised · 0 sustained · 35 remanded
Prong 1 · Merit & national importance
- Proposed endeavor too vague
The endeavor reads like a job title or a list of duties, not specific projects and goals.
34.5% of decisions1,565 raised · 4 sustained · 37 remanded - Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
The petition showed that the field matters (health care, AI, education) but not that this specific endeavor does.
15.1% of decisions687 raised · 1 sustained · 7 remanded - Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
The impact described would accrue mainly to one company, its customers, or local clients.
5.3% of decisions241 raised · 1 sustained · 5 remanded - No broader implications shown
The record did not show impact on the wider field, a region, or the public at large.
44.6% of decisions2,024 raised · 4 sustained · 27 remanded - Job creation or economic claims unsupported
Claims of jobs, revenue or economic benefit were speculative or not at a significant scale.
54.5% of decisions2,473 raised · 3 sustained · 52 remanded - Relied on a labor shortage
The petition argued there is a national shortage of workers in the occupation.
14.1% of decisions638 raised · 0 sustained · 9 remanded
Prong 2 · Well positioned
- Support letters generic or unsupported
Letters praised the petitioner in general terms without specific contributions or corroboration.
16.6% of decisions753 raised · 4 sustained · 16 remanded - Plan or projections not corroborated
The business plan, research plan or projections were not backed by independent evidence.
15.9% of decisions720 raised · 0 sustained · 12 remanded - Past record does not show influence or success
Publications, projects or roles were documented, but not their influence on the field or record of success.
17.4% of decisions789 raised · 34 sustained · 92 remanded - Citation record not persuasive
Citation counts were low, not put in context, or not tied to influence on the field.
6.4% of decisions292 raised · 5 sustained · 20 remanded - No interest from users, customers or investors
The record did not show that potential users, customers, investors or institutions are interested in the work.
12.4% of decisions561 raised · 6 sustained · 28 remanded - Claims not backed by documents
Statements by the petitioner or counsel were not supported by evidence in the record.
8.0% of decisions363 raised · 0 sustained · 8 remanded
Prong 3 · Balance of factors
- Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
The petition did not explain why the U.S. benefits from skipping the job offer and labor certification.
17.7% of decisions803 raised · 9 sustained · 88 remanded - No urgency shown
Nothing showed the contributions are time-sensitive enough to skip the labor certification process.
2.5% of decisions113 raised · 5 sustained · 12 remanded - Labor certification not shown to be impractical
The record did not show why the normal job-offer route would not work for this person or endeavor.
1.9% of decisions87 raised · 5 sustained · 6 remanded
Procedure & record
- Not eligible at the time of filing
A qualification (degree, publication, role) was obtained after the petition was filed.
8.4% of decisions382 raised · 0 sustained · 22 remanded - Tried to change the endeavor after filing
The endeavor described in the response or appeal differed materially from the one filed.
6.8% of decisions308 raised · 0 sustained · 23 remanded - Evidence submitted too late
Evidence first offered on appeal was not considered because the petitioner had an earlier chance to submit it.
2.9% of decisions130 raised · 0 sustained · 1 remanded - Inconsistencies in the record
Dates, titles, numbers or facts conflicted across documents.
12.7% of decisions578 raised · 0 sustained · 58 remanded
Counts come from automated matching on each decision's analysis section and can include false positives. Open an objection to see the matched sentences.