One Minute Read
The USCIS Policy Manual contains a specific cautionary example about software engineers — and the lesson it teaches applies far beyond the technology field. Understanding this example helps any professional, in any field, identify whether their proposed endeavor is at risk of failing Prong 1. This article breaks down the warning and explains how to make sure your petition does not fall into the same trap.
The Policy Manual Example, Word for Word
The USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5, contains the following explicit cautionary statement: “As a final example, a software engineer adapting their employer’s code for various clients will have difficulty demonstrating the national importance of that endeavor, absent additional broader impacts supported by specific evidence.”
This sentence is important for several reasons. First, it appears in the official guidance document that USCIS officers use when reviewing NIW petitions. Officers are trained to apply this guidance. Second, the example is specific enough to serve as a proxy for a much broader principle. Third, it uses the phrase “absent additional broader impacts supported by specific evidence” — which tells you exactly what is needed to overcome the limitation the example identifies.
The software engineer example is not about software engineers specifically. It is about any professional whose proposed endeavor can be characterized as executing tasks for a single employer or client without broader field-level implications. A lawyer who drafts contracts for a single firm faces the same issue. A financial analyst who runs models for a single employer faces the same issue. A physician who sees patients at a single clinic faces the same issue. The form of the work matters less than whether it produces outcomes that travel beyond the immediate employer-client relationship.
What ‘Broader Impacts’ Means in This Context
The phrase “broader impacts” in the Policy Manual has a specific technical meaning drawn from the Dhanasar analysis of national importance. An endeavor has broader impacts when its outcomes can affect the field, industry, region, or public beyond the petitioner’s immediate employer or clients. Research with publishable findings has broader impacts. Open-source tools released to the public have broader impacts. Frameworks documented in industry white papers and adopted by multiple organizations have broader impacts. Consulting services delivered to many clients across many sectors have broader impacts.
What does not have broader impacts, under this standard, is work that is performed entirely within the four walls of an employer relationship and whose outputs remain proprietary to that employer. If the software you write is never released publicly, never published about, never adopted or cited by anyone outside your employer, and has no documented influence on how the broader field approaches similar problems, then your proposed endeavor closely resembles the Policy Manual’s warning example.
Notice that the Policy Manual does not say this petitioner cannot get an NIW. It says they will have difficulty “absent additional broader impacts supported by specific evidence.” The door is open — you just need to walk through it with the right evidence.
How to Generate and Document Broader Impacts
For many professionals, the path to broader impacts is not as distant as it might seem. You may already have evidence of broader impacts that you have not thought to frame that way. Have you published anything — even informal technical articles, blog posts on professional platforms, or conference presentations? Have you contributed to open-source projects or public repositories? Have you developed internal tools or frameworks that were later presented to industry peers or adopted by partner organizations? Have you served on professional committees or contributed to standards-setting bodies?
If you have done any of these things, they represent broader impacts and should be documented as Prong 1 evidence. If you have not, consider whether there are realistic steps you can take before filing to create evidence of broader impact. Contributing a paper to a professional conference, releasing a tool or methodology publicly, or writing for an industry publication are all ways to create the kind of public, field-level footprint that transforms employer-specific work into broadly impactful endeavors.
It is also worth noting that planned future activities can constitute evidence of potential prospective broader impact, even if they have not yet occurred. If your proposed endeavor includes commitments to publish, present, consult broadly, or release methodologies publicly, these plans help demonstrate that the impact of your work will extend beyond any single employer or client. Document them specifically in your personal statement.
Applying This Lesson Across Professions
Non-tech professionals sometimes read the software engineer example and conclude that it does not apply to them. This is a mistake. The underlying principle applies universally: work that stays entirely within one employer’s walls, without any field-level implications, does not have national importance under the Dhanasar standard.
A business analyst whose proposed endeavor is “to analyze data for my employer’s supply chain operations” faces the same challenge. An architect whose proposed endeavor is “to design buildings for my firm’s clients” faces the same challenge. A marketing professional whose proposed endeavor is “to develop campaigns for U.S. companies” faces the same challenge. In each case, the work may be excellent and valuable, but it lacks the broader implications the standard requires.
The fix is always the same: reframe the endeavor around the broader problem being addressed, the methodology or framework being developed, and the potential for that methodology to influence practice beyond any single employer. The daily work may look identical, but the endeavor statement should describe the work at the level of field-level contribution rather than client-level service delivery.
A Practical Reframing Exercise
Take your current proposed endeavor statement and ask whether it would qualify under the Policy Manual’s software engineer test. Does your statement describe work that could be characterized as adapting your skills for a single employer’s needs? If so, try this exercise: write one paragraph explaining how your work addresses a problem that exists across the industry, not just at your employer. Write another paragraph explaining how your approach could be applied, adopted, or built upon by others in your field. Write a third paragraph explaining what documented evidence exists — government reports, industry studies, academic literature — that the problem you are addressing is a national priority.
If you can write all three paragraphs with specificity and supporting evidence, you have the foundation for a Prong 1 argument that surpasses the Policy Manual’s warning example. If you struggle with any of the three, that is where you need to focus your preparation before filing. The national importance test is not impossible to satisfy — but it requires thinking about your work as a contribution to a field, not just a service to an employer.
References and Further Reading
- USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 — National Interest Waiver — https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) — https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/B5%20-%20Members%20of%20the%20Professions%20Holding%20Advanced%20Degrees%20or%20Aliens%20of%20Exceptional%20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2016/DEC012016_01B5203.pdf
- USCIS — Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2 — https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-second-preference-eb-2
INA Section 203(b)(2) — National Interest Waiver Statutory Authority — https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1153&num=0&edition=prelim
