Skip to content

Case study · EB-1A · RFE

Technology leader, EB-1A RFE: judging and authorship accepted, five other criteria and two further requirements open

A de-identified RFE that shows the officer's reasoning criterion by criterion, including a request for evidence of continuing work and benefit to the US.

All case studies

EB-1ARFE
Source
Adjudicator notice (de-identified)
Timeline
Filed January 2025, premium processing, Texas Service Center
Key lesson

Treat the RFE as a checklist. For every criterion the officer lists the exact evidence types that would satisfy it.

Profile

Technology architect working on enterprise big-data analytics and security platforms, claiming seven criteria.

What was claimed

  • Awards
  • Membership
  • JudgingMet
  • Scholarly articlesMet
  • Original contributions of major significance
  • Leading or critical role
  • High salary

What happened

Awards: the officer found the awards received but no evidence of national or international recognition, no clear information on categories, numbers, criteria, or whether awards were national in scope, and treated marketing material as insufficient.

Membership: the evidence did not show the associations required outstanding achievements or used recognized national or international experts to judge them. The officer listed what does not count: employment in the field, minimum education or experience, recommendations by members, and dues.

Original contributions: the officer found technical achievements in the development of a product but no evidence of major significance to the field, and said letters that repeat regulatory language do not suffice.

Leading or critical role: acknowledgment of employment is not a leading or critical role, and the evidence did not show how the role differed from others in a similar position or that the organization had a distinguished reputation.

Salary: above average is not necessarily high. Broad comparison data covering many occupations is not accurate. The officer suggested location- and role-specific compensation surveys and employer justifications.

The RFE also noted that no prearranged commitment for work in the field was shown and asked for evidence of how the applicant will continue work in the US and of substantial prospective benefit.

Lessons for evaluating your own case

Every notice is a list of what to fix. Use these as a checklist for your own evidence.

  • Treat the RFE as a checklist. For every criterion the officer lists the exact evidence types that would satisfy it.
  • Awards need selectivity data: who can be considered, how many are given, the criteria and the media coverage.
  • Membership needs the bylaws section on admission criteria and who reviews applications.
  • Always include a continuing-work statement and a US-benefit statement, even where the regulations do not require a job offer.
Anonymized. Personal details, employers, receipt numbers, officer codes and law firms are removed. This is general information, not legal advice.

See how your evidence maps to the criteria

Meritocrat's free assessment maps your evidence to EB-1A, EB-2 NIW and O-1 criteria and shows the gaps, using patterns from cases like this one.

Get your free assessment