RFE Language by Criterion — NIW
When an RFE Challenges the Balancing Test (Dhanasar Prong 3)
Prong 3 is the one petitions most often skip entirely. The officer's objection is specific and answerable — if you know it is a separate argument.
The governing text
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
Read the primary source →What the officer actually wrote
Quoted verbatim from a real USCIS notice. Names, employers, exact dates, and figures have been removed or generalized; bracketed text marks a redaction.
“The self-petitioner failed to submit evidence that their knowledge or skills are not easily articulated in a labor certification, they have not demonstrated, as claimed, that they present benefits to the United States through their proposed endeavor that outweigh those inherent in the labor certification process. In addition, the self-petitioner has not shown that they offer contributions of such value that, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.”
This case was denied after the RFE response。
Three separate sub-arguments in one sentence: (a) your skills cannot be captured in a labor certification, (b) the benefit outweighs what the labor certification process provides, (c) the benefit holds even if qualified U.S. workers exist. Most petitions argue none of them, assuming prong 3 follows automatically from prongs 1 and 2. It does not.
Authorities the officer cited
Reproduced as they appear in the notice. These are the officer’s citations, not ImmiFlo’s — we have not independently verified each quotation against the reporter. Our own verified library is on the legal citations page.
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
ImmiFlo compares your RFE notice against your original filing and tells you, criterion by criterion, exactly what the officer challenged and which of your existing exhibits already answer it.
Analyze your RFE for free →