By Attorney Hong-min Jun

In NIW adjudications, economic "ripple effect" arguments from consulting or professional services are frequently raised but rarely persuasive. A close reading of the Dhanasar framework reveals why indirect economic reasoning consistently falls short of the national importance standard.

What Is a "Ripple Effect" Argument?

Many consulting applicants argue that their work indirectly benefits the United States at a national level by helping businesses improve efficiency, create jobs, or drive economic growth. This argument pattern — where individual work produces broad societal or economic benefits through a chain of indirect effects — is what practitioners call the "ripple effect" argument.

Why AAO Consistently Rejects These Arguments

“The petitioner has not demonstrated that their work has a direct and substantial impact on U.S. national interests, rather than merely indirect economic reasoning.”

The AAO's core position is that national importance requires direct, quantifiable impact on the United States — not benefits that only materialize through multiple intermediate steps.

Effective Alternative Strategies

Consulting applicants should shift their argument from indirect economic impact to: directly addressing critical problems in specific U.S. industries, demonstrating quantifiable direct impact metrics, and establishing clear connections to U.S. policy priority areas.