Blog for Postdocs / Phds, National Interest Waiver, Extraordinary Ability

Disclaimer: The contents in this web site are only for your information and are not intended to be legal advice. While many of our applicants successfully obtain their I-140 approvals, the information here should not be considered as a guarantee of your green card application outcome.

EB1A RFE response and chances of approval

Hi, I am a research scholar. I filed my EB1A petition (I140) through premium processing. I received RFE where it says two of the evidences met the criterion’s plain language. But for the 3rd one, they asked for additional evidences. The 3rd criterion is “my original contributions of major significance”. My initial application provided letters from pioneers in my research field where they clearly stated my research work and how it is influencing. However, they want more evidences. I am trying to collect all emails that I received from others asking for copy of my published materials, and new letters. Although the approval depends of how strongly I can demonstrate my work and its impact, do you have any suggestions/advise?

Could you please advise me should I proceed with high confidence? With your experience, what are the chances for approval after satisfying 2 criteria and responding to RFE for the 3rd one?

Thank you


3 Responses to EB1A RFE response and chances of approval

  • Tigran Kalaydzhyan says:

    Let me reproduce some recommendations regarding this particular criterion from the USCIS RFE template for EB1A (see the link below),

    “To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
    [*] Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s contribution to the field.
    [*] Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the beneficiary’s work important.
    [*] Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
    [*] Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
    [*] Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others. Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
    a) Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
     b) Licensed technology being used by others;
    c) Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.

    Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.”

    My colleagues here may have more information, but from the examples I know, a well supported reply to RFE normally leads to success. On the other hand, you have nothing to lose, since you cannot wait for, e.g., new publications to come to add them to your case – the evidences for your case should not come from a future date comparing to the date you filed the petition.

  • Lokesh says:

    Dear Tigran, thank you so much for your time suggesting me. I will go through your suggestions. Will update you if I have any positive news.
    Thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *