EB2 NIW Denied: What Went Wrong in the Case of a Cybersecurity Researcher?

A recent post on Reddit caught the attention of the immigration and research community alike. An experienced ethical hacker and cybersecurity vulnerability researcher—a professional with 10+ years of experience, accolades from tech giants like Microsoft and Google, and eight recommendation letters—had their EB2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition denied.

The twist? USCIS allegedly misread their field of expertise entirely, mistaking the petitioner for a therapist.

While this sounds absurd, it highlights a deeper issue that deserves unpacking. To understand where this case may have gone wrong, we need to revisit the decision on the matter of Dhanasar—the current framework USCIS uses to adjudicate EB2 NIW petitions.

Understanding the EB2 NIW Framework: The Three-Prong Test

Under Matter of Dhanasar (2016), an EB2 NIW petitioner must satisfy three critical prongs:

1. The Proposed Endeavor Has Substantial Merit and National Importance

This prong looks at the broader value of the work. It does not require direct job creation, but asks:

• Is this work important to the U.S. on a national scale?
• Does it contribute to a key area—like cybersecurity, public health, tech, or energy?

In this case, the petitioner worked in cybersecurity vulnerability research—a field undeniably critical to national security and digital infrastructure. Discovering threats in systems like those at Google and Microsoft has clear national importance.

Assessment: The petitioner likely met this prong.

2. The Petitioner Is Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor

This prong focuses on the applicant’s track record and capacity to continue the work successfully in the U.S.

• Are they respected in the field?
• Have they made meaningful contributions?
• Do they have the qualifications, experience, and endorsements?

With 10 years of experience, documented findings, recognition from Microsoft as a “Most Valuable Hacker,” and 8 supporting letters, this researcher appears to have a strong profile.

However, clarity and framing matter here. If the petition or cover letter failed to connect the achievements directly to future U.S.-based contributions—or if the documentation was too technical without context—the officer might have misunderstood the impact.

Possible issue: If the officer truly misread the field, this prong may have been undermined by a failure in communication or narrative framing.

3. On Balance, It Would Be Beneficial to the U.S. to Waive the Job Offer and Labor Certification Requirements

This is the most interpretive prong. It weighs whether the U.S. would benefit more from waiving the labor certification process (which ensures no qualified American worker is displaced) than from enforcing it.

The petitioner must show that their work is urgently needed, hard to replicate, or offers benefits that outweigh the standard green card process.

For a cybersecurity researcher uncovering global vulnerabilities and improving tech infrastructure, this could be a compelling argument—if well articulated.

Possible issue: If the petition didn’t make a strong case for why labor certification is not practical in this case, the officer may have defaulted to a denial.

The Real Failure: Communication, Not Credentials?

While we don’t have access to the full petition, this case reflects something we see too often: misalignment between technical expertise and immigration adjudication standards.

Immigration officers are not specialists in every field. A brilliant technical resume without a clear, accessible narrative can be misunderstood. In this case, confusing a cybersecurity expert for a therapist isn’t just an oversight—it’s a failure in how the petition was constructed, framed, or interpreted.

What Can We Learn?

1. Tailor your petition to your audience.
   USCIS officers must understand your work’s relevance without needing deep technical knowledge.
2. Connect the dots for all three prongs.
   A strong track record isn’t enough if it isn’t clearly tied to national interest and future impact.
3. Clarify, simplify, and narrate.
   Avoid letting impressive achievements get lost in jargon.

In an era where cybersecurity threats are a growing concern, this case underscores why precision, clarity, and strategy are just as critical in immigration petitions as credentials. It’s not enough to be valuable—your petition must demonstrate that value in a way USCIS can’t misinterpret.