No interest from users, customers or investors

What this objection usually means

Interest from relevant third parties is a key sign that a person is well positioned. Its absence leaves the plan unsupported.

What has tended to answer it

Letters of intent, collaboration agreements, funding, invitations, data-use agreements, and user or adopter letters.

General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.

The rule

“The interest or support garnered by the person from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or persons.”

USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 5(D)(3) (second prong)

Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.

Where it sank the appeal

Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection

• Dismissed2026-08-21Clinical & health

  For the same reasons discussed above, we conclude that the record does not show interest from relevant entities based upon her citation record. 5

  Read decision AUG212026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-20Business & finance

  However, the evidence does not establish widespread interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, that it is novel and important, or that it stands to impact the field.

  Read decision AUG202026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-19Computing, AI & data

  of national importance."6 The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Beneficiary's prior research work or any interest in his published findings.

  Read decision AUG192026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-13Education

  On Form I-140, asked to specify "the address where the person will work," the Petitioner specified a residential address in I Florida. 2 The petition includes Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, on which the Petitioner specified that same I I address as the "Worksite Address" "where work will be performed"; indicated that the business had five "current employees on payroll"; and attested that the Petitioner did not hold an ownership interest in the company.

  Read decision AUG132026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-11Clinical & health

  However, the record does not include documentary evidence of the presentations mentioned by W-W- or of the response to or interest in the presentations Ifrom ptblic health researchers or other relevant parties, particularly those not affiliated with I I The Petitioner asserts that USCIS employed circular reasoning in questioning her expertise and seemed to require that she already have accomplished what she intends to do in order to show that she is well positioned to achieve her goals.

  Read decision AUG112026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-31Education

  MM- also stated that the Petitioner "contributed to controlling the results and authoring the project's technical reports," but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the level of interest in her work on this project or her record of success in research is sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned.

  Read decision JUL312026_01B5203

Where the petitioner still won or got a remand

Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it

• Remanded2026-07-28Physical sciences & math

  But beyond the potential applications of the Petitioner's research, A-M- does not specify how the Petitioner's research already represents a record of success or has attracted the interest of other researchers or relevant parties.

  Read decision JUL282026_06B5203
• Remanded2026-04-09Business & finance

  For instance, the decision concluded, without a specific discussion of documents in the record, that the Petitioner "has not shown an urgent interest in her [sic] own contributions" and "has not demonstrated that she [sic] presents benefits to the United States through his proposed endeavor that outweigh those inherent in the labor certification process."

  Read decision APR092026_01B5203
• Remanded2025-12-17Biomedical & life sciences

  A-R- asserted that the Petitioner's "work is a cornerstone for advancing agricultural sustainability and productivity," the Petitioner has not shown that the level ofinterest in his specific research is sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned. 3

  Read decision DEC172025_02B5203
• Remanded2025-12-02Computing, AI & data

  Turning to the question of national importance, SCOPS quoted a passage from Dhanasar regarding the defense applications of the proposed endeavor in that case, and determined that the Petitioner "did not submit evidence of interest in [his] endeavor from U.S. government entities" and did not show the endeavor's "potential prospective impact."

  Read decision DEC022025_01B5203
• Remanded2025-11-19Clinical & health

  First, we observe that these grants were awarded approximately a decade ago while the Petitioner was attending graduate school, and the Petitioner has not offered evidence showing her current work has support, such as research funding, from relevant entities claiming interest in her specific endeavor.

  Read decision NOV192025_03B5203
• Remanded2025-10-02Biomedical & life sciences

  The record does not show that the pharmaceutical industry and research community have taken an interest in the Petitioner's work to a degree that would warrant the special benefit of a national interest waiver.

  Read decision OCT022025_02B5203