Skip to content

Case study · EB-1A · RFE

Tech executive with high pay and widely used open-source work, RFE with zero of four criteria accepted

On paper a strong profile, and a reminder that criteria claims are not self-proving. The notice text is not available to us, so the reasons are unknown.

All case studies

EB-1ARFE
Source
Community report (self-reported)
Timeline
Premium processing, Nebraska Service Center
Key lesson

Strong facts still need the right proof. High salary needs comparison with others in the field in the same location and role, not only the figure.

Profile

Senior engineer who reports compensation above 800k at a large technology company for several years, an open-source contribution to a machine-learning framework reportedly used by government and industry, and letters from executives and government-funded labs.

What was claimed

  • High salary
  • Leading or critical role (letters from senior executives, mention in an earnings report)
  • Original contributions (open-source work reportedly used by a US army research group, a space agency and many technology companies)
  • Judging (a major company hackathon, other hackathons, two IEEE paper reviews)

What happened

The applicant, represented by a lawyer who thought the case was strong, received an RFE reporting that none of the four criteria were accepted.

We do not have the RFE, so the reasons are not known. Common reasons in comparable notices in this library include a missing comparison to others in the field, letters that praise without showing influence beyond the employer, and evidence that a contribution is used rather than evidence of its significance to the field.

Lessons for evaluating your own case

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

  • Strong facts still need the right proof. High salary needs comparison with others in the field in the same location and role, not only the figure.
  • For open-source work, evidence of significance means independent adoption data, citations, commentary and implementation by others, not only the contributor's own account.
  • For judging, show an official judging role and why the event matters in the field.
  • Do not treat a lawyer's confidence as an outcome. Criterion-by-criterion evidence quality is what the officer reads.
Limits of this case. Self-reported. We could not confirm the facts or the reasons, so treat the lessons as questions to test rather than findings.
Anonymized. Personal details, employers, receipt numbers, officer codes and law firms are removed. This is general information, not legal advice.
← EB-1A RFEEB-1A RFE →

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
Best practices for case evaluation