Adjudication Watch

## What the record shows Among the appealed NIW denials that reach the merits, 86.5% discuss exactly one of the three Dhanasar prongs and stop there (2,663 of 3,079). The decision does not go on to find that the other two prongs were satisfied. It simply does not reach them. The record is explicit about why. Where a decision cites *INS v. Bagamasbad*, the authority for not reaching unnecessary issues, it stops at a single prong 90.9% of the time (n=2,371). Where it does not cite that rule, the figure is 71.8% (n=708), a gap of 19.1 percentage points. The full figures and their query are registered as [S54](/methodology). ## Why this is worth a week's attention The natural way to read a denial is to look for the reason it failed and treat the rest of the case as fine. This pattern describes why that reading can mislead. A decision that discusses one prong is not a finding that the other two were met. It is a decision that found one dispositive problem and, by its own citation, declined to go further. The practical reading is about where to put attention. If your denial discusses one prong, treat the other two as unbriefed, not as won. Count how many prongs the decision actually reaches before drawing conclusions about the ones it does not mention. ## What it does not say It does not predict any outcome, say that a denial on one prong means the others were weak, or characterize any individual case. These are appealed decisions, which are their own population and not a sample of filings. It is a statement about how these decisions are written, not about how any petition will be judged.