EB-1A RFE: Receiving a Request for Evidence, commonly called an RFE, can be alarming. However, an RFE does not mean that USCIS has already decided to deny an EB-1A petition. It means that the reviewing officer believes the original submission does not clearly establish one or more eligibility requirements and is giving the petitioner an opportunity to clarify, supplement, or strengthen the case.
The response must be taken seriously. An incomplete, generic, or late response may result in denial. Therefore, the first step should not be to submit documents hurriedly. It should be to identify exactly what USCIS is questioning and determine what evidence can directly resolve each concern.
What does USCIS evaluate in an EB-1A petition?
The EB-1A classification is available to individuals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Generally, the applicant must demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award or satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.
Meeting three criteria, however, does not automatically guarantee approval. After reviewing the evidence under the individual criteria, USCIS conducts a final merits determination. At this stage, the agency considers whether the record as a whole demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and whether the applicant belongs to the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the top of the field.
An RFE may challenge a particular regulatory criterion, the final merits determination, or both.
Is an EB-1A RFE the same as an NIW RFE?
No. Although both may involve petitions filed on Form I-140, the two immigration categories apply different legal requirements.
In an EB-2 National Interest Waiver, or NIW, case, USCIS considers matters such as the merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor, whether the applicant is well positioned to advance it, and whether waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.
An EB-1A petition focuses primarily on the applicant’s individual accomplishments, sustained recognition within the area of expertise, and standing among the most accomplished professionals in the field. A response prepared for an NIW RFE should not be reused as though it were suitable for an EB-1A case.
Four common reasons for an EB-1A RFE
1. A leading or critical role has not been sufficiently established
Showing that the applicant held an impressive title or worked for a respected organization may not be enough. USCIS may question whether the person’s role was truly leading or critical for an organization or division with a distinguished reputation.
A strong response may include detailed letters from senior officials, organizational charts, evidence of projects led by the applicant, measurable results, responsibilities extending beyond the ordinary position, and independent documentation of the organization’s reputation. Letters should explain the specific importance of the applicant’s work instead of merely offering praise.
2. The awards do not demonstrate recognized excellence
USCIS may question whether an award was granted for excellence in the applicant’s field or whether it has national or international recognition. A certificate alone may be insufficient if it does not explain how recipients were selected.
The response may include the award’s rules, information about the granting institution, geographic scope, number of candidates, qualifications of the judges, media coverage, and evidence concerning previous recipients. Awards received in Latin America may qualify, but their prestige and significance must be documented for an officer who may be unfamiliar with the institution.
3. Original contributions do not show major significance
Having original ideas, developing products, or participating in research does not automatically prove that the work has been of major significance to the field. USCIS often looks for evidence of influence extending beyond the applicant’s employer or immediate team.
Useful documentation may include adoption of the work by independent parties, academic citations, licensed or commercialized patents, measurable improvements, licensing records, specialized media coverage, and statements from independent experts. Expert letters are more persuasive when they provide verifiable examples and explain how the contribution affected the broader industry or discipline.
4. Published articles are not genuinely about the applicant
The published-material criterion requires more than articles authored by the applicant or passing references to the person’s name. The material must concern the applicant and the applicant’s work, appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media, and satisfy the other applicable requirements.
A response may provide the complete article, a certified translation when necessary, the author’s name, publication date, circulation information, intended audience, and evidence of the outlet’s reputation. An article published in Spanish can qualify; its language or country of publication does not automatically make it insufficient.
Not every applicant must satisfy this particular criterion. An individual may qualify through a different combination of criteria, provided the evidence also supports a favorable final merits determination.
How to build an effective RFE response
First, the RFE should be reviewed line by line. It is helpful to create a list identifying every conclusion made by the officer, the corresponding criterion, and the evidence needed to address it. No objection should be left unanswered.
Next, the response should combine legal analysis with supporting documentation. It may explain why the original evidence already meets the requirement, correct an incomplete interpretation, and provide additional documents clarifying circumstances that existed when the petition was filed. New evidence should not be used to convert the filing into a case that was ineligible on its original filing date.
The response must also connect the individual criteria to the final merits determination. Simply stating that three categories of evidence were submitted is not enough. The filing should explain how the applicant’s awards, publications, contributions, critical roles, or other achievements establish sustained recognition and an exceptional position within the field.
Finally, the complete response must be submitted in the required format by the exact deadline stated in the notice. USCIS generally does not extend an RFE deadline. The available time should be used strategically to obtain documents, translations, expert statements, and independent evidence.
Do not wait until the last moment
An RFE can provide a genuine opportunity to strengthen an EB-1A petition, but the response must be customized. Submitting a disorganized collection of exhibits or relying only on emotional arguments may leave the officer’s concerns unresolved.
If you received an EB-1A RFE, obtaining professional assistance early can help identify weaknesses in the original filing, select persuasive evidence, and develop a response addressing every disputed requirement.
AnaMaria Rivera Law Firm, LLC evaluates EB-1A petitions and Requests for Evidence using a strategy tailored to each applicant’s accomplishments and professional field. Visit https://anamariarivera.com/en/eb-1-visa/ to learn more about this classification and request guidance regarding your case.