# Niw Officer Review

> NIW Officer Review

- Skill: `kateaiuser/niw-officer-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add kateaiuser/niw-officer-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/kateaiuser/niw-officer-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: kateaiuser (https://skillmd.com/u/kateaiuser)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/kateaiuser/niw-officer-review

---


# NIW Officer Review

Use this skill to review an `EB-2 NIW` case as if you were a skeptical but fair officer.
This is an educational drafting and risk-review workflow, not legal advice.

## When to use

Use when the user wants to:

- pressure-test a draft NIW case;
- assess founder or entrepreneur viability;
- evaluate `proposed endeavor`, `national importance`, or `well positioned`;
- surface `red flags`;
- compare case framing across public health, women’s health, hormonal health, conservation, AI and deep tech, education, or business-impact narratives.

## Core standard

Review everything through the `Matter of Dhanasar` framework:

1. the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance;
2. the person is well positioned to advance it;
3. on balance, waiving the job offer and labor certification benefits the United States.

Also keep current USCIS entrepreneur guidance in mind:

- the endeavor must be more specific than a job title or broad mission;
- benefits to one employer or one local business are usually not enough;
- general claims like "job creation" or "the industry is important" are weak without proof;
- founder cases rise or fall on execution credibility, outside validation, and a clean evidence chain.

If the user gives only a resume or biography, do not treat it as a full case. State what is missing.

## Review workflow

### 1. Reconstruct the case

Distill the case into five fields:

- `profile`;
- `proposed endeavor`;
- `national problem in the U.S.`;
- `mechanism of impact`;
- `evidence already available`.

If the endeavor is vague, rewrite it into one sentence in this format:

`I will [specific activity] for [defined target population / system] in order to improve [nationally relevant outcome], using [credible capability / platform / method].`

### 2. Test prong 1

Check whether the endeavor is:

- specific enough to describe real work, not just ambition;
- connected to a national-level need in the U.S.;
- supported by a plausible mechanism from activity to impact;
- broader than a single clinic, employer, city, or consulting shop.

For public health, women’s health, hormonal health, or conservation, look for:

- underserved population, access gap, compliance gap, cost burden, health outcome, research translation, environmental resilience, workforce shortage, or public-system relevance;
- evidence that the problem exists at state, regional, or national scale.

### 3. Test prong 2

Ask whether the applicant is truly positioned to execute, not merely interested.

Look for:

- founder track record;
- domain expertise tied to the endeavor itself;
- pilots, clients, LOIs, partners, advisors, grants, patents, publications, or product traction;
- ecosystem access in the U.S.;
- continuity between past wins and future plan.

Discount:

- prestige that does not connect to the endeavor;
- recommendation letters that praise the person but do not validate the endeavor;
- generic business plans with no external proof.

### 4. Test prong 3

Decide whether the waiver logic is actually stronger than ordinary labor certification.

Positive signals:

- the endeavor is urgent, specialized, founder-led, hard to substitute, or benefits from flexibility across entities;
- the work depends on the petitioner’s unusual mix of skills, network, research, or cross-sector experience;
- the public benefit is not captured by one employer relationship.

Weak signals:

- "I am talented and the U.S. should keep me";
- "my field is important";
- "I can get a job anyway";
- "I will open a business and hire people."

## Output format

Default to this structure:

### Verdict

State `Strong`, `Workable but risky`, or `Weak as framed`.

### Dhanasar scorecard

- `Prong 1`:
- `Prong 2`:
- `Prong 3`:

### Red flags

List the highest-risk issues first.

### Missing evidence

Name the exact evidence that would most improve the case.

### Reframed endeavor

Provide a tighter officer-safe version.

### Action plan

Give the next 5 to 10 steps in priority order.

## Red-flag rules

Treat these as serious issues:

- the endeavor sounds like a profession, not a project;
- the petition leans on industry importance instead of endeavor importance;
- impact is limited to one startup, clinic, employer, or local market;
- the business plan contains projections but no independent support;
- letters repeat adjectives instead of concrete facts;
- the petitioner has achievements, but in a different lane than the proposed endeavor;
- the case bundles multiple missions and loses focus;
- social impact claims are emotionally strong but evidentially weak;
- the founder story centers the petitioner’s struggle instead of U.S. benefit.

## Sector-specific prompts

### Women’s health / hormonal health

Push for:

- clearly defined condition, care gap, diagnostic gap, stigma barrier, or access gap;
- public-health framing, not only lifestyle or wellness framing;
- measurable outcomes such as screening, adherence, symptom reduction, care navigation, payer cost, workforce participation, or underserved access.

### Conservation / environment

Push for:

- ecosystem, water, land, climate resilience, biodiversity, agricultural, or compliance outcomes;
- regional or national relevance, not only a local passion project;
- implementation pathway through data, policy, monitoring, restoration, or commercial deployment.

### AI / deep tech

Push for:

- a deployed or deployable capability, not a research interest or a brand;
- connection to recognized national priorities such as critical technology, infrastructure, safety, or competitiveness;
- independent technical validation: benchmarks, adoption, pilots, patents, or expert review.

### Women entrepreneurs / founder cases

Do not assume the case is strong because it is mission-driven.
Ask whether the founder can prove:

- execution;
- market pull;
- national-scale relevance;
- evidence that the company is a vehicle for the endeavor, not the endeavor itself.

## References

Read these only when needed:

- [USCIS and AAO criteria](references/uscis_and_aao.md)
- [Reddit patterns and founder red flags](references/reddit_patterns.md)