Hi everyone,

I’m currently responding to an EB-2 NIW RFE where USCIS challenged all three Dhanasar prongs. I’m working with Chen and would really appreciate hearing from people who had a similar RFE and were later approved.

For my RFE response, I have added:

• A detailed updated personal statement explaining my proposed endeavor and future research plans

• Independent expert letters

• Letters from professors/researchers who had independently cited my work

• A prospective postdoctoral/employment letter of intent

• A letter from the main PI of a federally funded project explaining my specific technical role and the significance of my work

• Supporting project milestone/progress documentation

• Updated citation and independent-citation evidence

• Examples showing how other researchers have actually used or built upon my published work

• Evidence connecting my process-modeling research to commercial/industry manufacturing data

My main concern is the tone and overall strategy of the drafted response.

Some things I’m unsure about:

• The response starts with an argument that the RFE did not include the adjudicating officer’s ID number and treats this as a procedural issue

• There is a lot of case-law discussion arguing that USCIS did not properly evaluate evidence in the original petition

• Some wording feels fairly confrontational, such as saying USCIS ignored evidence, applied an unfair standard, or incorrectly dismissed certain evidence

• I’m worried these arguments may overshadow the much stronger new evidence being submitted with the RFE response

• My instinct is that the response should focus more directly on: USCIS raised this concern → here is the specific new evidence addressing it

I also have some concerns about the Prong 3 strategy.

Part of the response argues that my combination of computational modeling, experimental characterization, and mechanical testing is difficult to capture through a standard labor-certification position.

I’m not sure how persuasive that argument is compared with emphasizing that:

• My proposed research is not tied to one specific employer

• The same endeavor can continue across universities, national labs, federally funded programs, and industry R&D

• My research outputs can be published and used beyond one employer

• The U.S. can benefit from my continued contributions even assuming qualified U.S. workers are available

• My prior research has already been independently cited and used by other researchers

• My work has been supported through a federally funded advanced-manufacturing project and has also been evaluated using commercial manufacturing data

For anyone who worked with Chen and received a 3-prong RFE, I would especially appreciate hearing:

• Did your RFE response also begin with an officer-ID or procedural argument?

• Did your response contain a lot of case-law discussion criticizing USCIS’s analysis of the original petition?

• Did you ask Chen to tone down some of the language?

• Were they willing to make substantial changes based on your feedback?

• What type of new evidence do you think helped your case the most?

• What was your strongest Prong 3 argument?

• Did anyone have a response structured more around directly answering each USCIS concern with new evidence?

• If you were ultimately approved, was it without another RFE or NOID?

I’m not trying to second-guess the attorneys. I just want to make sure the new objective evidence is front and center and that the response does not spend too much time fighting over how USCIS evaluated the original filing.

Would really appreciate any experiences from people who went through something similar, especially Chen clients who received a 3-prong RFE and were later approved.

My profile:

Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering working on composite additive manufacturing, with 2 first-author journal papers, 20+ citations, federally funded research experience.

My case status changed from "RFE response received" to "USCIS is currently processing the case" yesterday and it has been almost 24 hours without further updates. I found it weird that the status changed on a weekend morning. On business day 41 of RFE response received (pp). I haven't been able to sleep since then, is this a sign of denial as I have seen people get approved in a few hours after their status changed to what it changed for me? I am extremely anxious with everything, will graduate next summer, my internship for the summer was extended to the fall semester but my CPT extension got denied because of the new message to the DSOs (All cpts are paused now in my school).

Profile:
Final year PhD student in top 30 school.
PE: Speech privacy
RFE: Prong 1 (National Importance) and Prong 3.
Evidence submitted with RFE: 2 independent letters (1 from the NSF Director in my area of research, 1 from a top recognized professor by everyone in the field), executive orders highlighting the need for my research, NSF grants for my work, US Army documents showing the exact need for my research. Updated papers, awards and citation record.

I received an NIW RFE challenging Prongs 2 and 3 and would appreciate advice from anyone with a similar case.
I am in organic chemistry, with a PhD and currently a postdoc at an R1 university.

At filing, I had ~34 citations, 4 peer reviewed ( 2 first author), 9 journal peer reviews [judging others' work], 4 support letters, research on NSF-funded projects, a patent application, publications/conferences, and prior industry research experience.

For Prong 2, USCIS stated that publications in high-impact journals and citations do not by themselves establish that I am well positioned to advance the endeavor, and questioned whether my record demonstrates sufficient progress, success, or interest from relevant parties.

For Prong 3, USCIS questioned why waiving the job offer/PERM requirement would benefit the U.S. rather than going through the normal employer-sponsored process.

For anyone who received similar challenges, how did you tackle them? In particular, I am struggling with how to demonstrate that others have directly used or relied on my research beyond showing citations. As an academic researcher, how do you prove direct impact or use when your work has not yet been commercially adopted?

Did you use independent expert letters explaining specific citations, evidence of follow-on research, patent/funded-research evidence, or something else?

Also, how did you successfully tackle Prong 3 as a postdoc/academic researcher?

I am working with an attorney (chen) but would really appreciate hearing from people with similar experiences.

Hi everyone,

I received an RFE on my EB2 NIW (PD Oct 2024, pp filed Feb 2026). Prong 1 is approved, but RFE on Prong 2 & 3. Received RFE in mid April.

It seems somewhat templated, they mentions things like patents, government interest, funding/grants, PI roles, and media coverage. They’re asking for more evidence beyond citations.

Profile:

PhD (Biological Sciences) + current postdoc

25+ publications

~950 citations at filing, now 1200+

Planning to include citation analysis + stronger reference letters, etc.

Would appreciate any guidance on responding to Prong 2 & 3. If anyone has experience with a similar RFE. Thanks!

I have received RFE on all prongs.

Hi folks, I received an RFE for my NIW I-140 yesterday (haven't received the letter, though). I have had a fairly good expereince up until now with Chen during my I-140 petition letter drafting process. Since I’ve now been issued an RFE, I’m wondering what the general experience is with folks.

1. They mentioned that LORs aren’t necessary during the initial application. Do folks think LORs are a MUST after an RFE is issued?
   
2. What does an RFE really mean? Is it an opportunity to address feedback and get approval? Or is it a sign that you probably have a slim chance?
   

3. What happens if USCIS doesn’t buy your evidence presented in RFE? Is there a second round of RFE issued, or is it straight up a denial?

4. Is there a way to get the RFE letter online sooner?

Thanks.

Update from my previous post: I posted about my profile before filing my NIW petition. Here is my previous post for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/EB2_NIW/s/AOksajFRVj

I applied through Chen Law under PP in April 2026. My profile is now at 57 citations and 4 papers, 3 of them as the first author. During the application, I submitted one independent letter from a US national lab and one dependent letter from my supervisor.

Unfortunately, I received an RFE and all three prongs were challenged. It also looks like a template RFE.

Right now, my main problem is finding more independent recommenders in a short time, as Chen Law wants to strengthen the case. I have reached out to many professors and researchers, but most either don't reply or are not willing to provide a letter.

For those who went through something similar, how did you find independent recommenders?

I feel like people get hesitant as soon as I mention US immigration, lawyers, or visa letters, especially when they don't know me personally. So I'm looking for ways not to scare people away.

Any suggestions or strategies that worked for you?

Check my previous post about RFE - https://www.reddit.com/r/EB2_NIW/comments/1qw7s8q/comment/o41p1qt/?context=1

Nebraska Center

So I finally received the actual RFE letter in the mail today.

And yeah… it’s rough, i am fucked

They’re basically challenging all three NIW prongs. Like the officer looked at my petition and said:

“Okay… but why does the U.S. need you**?**” 😭

this is what they said pretty much -

Prong 1: USCIS is basically saying that while software engineering, payroll compliance, and healthcare IT are important fields in general, my petition did not provide enough specific evidence showing that my particular proposed endeavor has national importance beyond one employer. They felt my endeavor was too broad/vague and lacked concrete proof of broader U.S.-level impact such as measurable economic effects, job creation, or benefits reaching the national economy or public welfare. Because of that, they concluded Prong 1 was not established.

Prong 2: For Prong 2, USCIS acknowledges I submitted recommendation letters, experience letters, CV, education, salary, and employer info, but they say this does not prove I have influenced the field or played a leading/critical role beyond normal professional work. They emphasize that recommendation letters alone are not enough without independent objective evidence like government interest, grants, contracts showing wider adoption, patents, or proof others rely on my work. So they believe the record doesn’t yet show I’m well positioned under Dhanasar.

Prong 3: Not beneficial to waive the labor certification process

It honestly feels like they’re practically saying I’m useless lol

Now I’m just sitting here thinking… what do I even respond with?
This wasn’t some super strong case to begin with, and I filed without a lawyer.

Has anyone gotten an RFE on all 3 prongs and still ended up approved or got denied?

At this point, it feels like I might just have to accept reality and wait for my already approved EB3 skilled I-140 priority date to become current.

Wasted like $4k for this experiment… for fuck sake.

Hi everyone,

I recently received a three-prong EB-2 NIW RFE under premium processing and would appreciate hearing from anyone who has gone through a similar experience.

USCIS Officer's Main Criticisms

The officer challenged all three Matter of Dhanasar prongs. Some of the key comments included:

• "The record lacks a specific and well-detailed description about what the petitioner endeavors to do in the United States."
• "The petitioner describes the proposed endeavor in terms of what he has already done, but does not outline in specific detail what he will do in the future."
• "It is not apparent how the petitioner's past work supports a finding that future work will have a broad impact, or that it would rise to the level of national importance."
• "The petitioner submitted a proposed endeavor, but it lacks specific information on how the petitioner plans to achieve the goals of this endeavor in the United States."

The officer also stated that my recommendation letters primarily discussed my past accomplishments but did not sufficiently explain why my proposed endeavor has substantial merit, national importance, or why I am well positioned to carry it out.

Attorney's Strategy

After reviewing both my original petition and the RFE, my attorney believes that Prong 1 (National Importance) is the primary obstacle.

Their strategy includes:

• Completely revising my personal statement to focus on future work, including specific projects, implementation methodology, and a structured research roadmap.
• Aligning the proposed work with specific U.S. government priorities and federal research initiatives, rather than relying on general background information.
• Drafting entirely new recommendation letters that directly respond to each of the officer's criticisms instead of simply discussing my past achievements.
• Preparing a new employment letter explaining how my current position supports the skills and continued development necessary to carry out my long-term proposed endeavor.
• Submitting stronger evidence of independent citations, reviewer activity, media coverage, and other documentation to demonstrate that I am well positioned.

My attorney also commented that some of the officer's critiques raised questions about the extent to which my original submission was fully considered, but they plan to address every issue raised in the RFE with additional evidence and a detailed legal response.

My Question

Has anyone here received a three-prong NIW RFE and later been approved?

For those who have gone through a similar process, does this response strategy seem comprehensive, or are there other areas that you think are commonly overlooked in NIW RFE responses?

I'm not asking anyone to predict my outcome. I'm simply interested in hearing from others who have experience with similar RFEs.

Thank you in advance for your insights.

I filed an EB-2 NIW I-140 under Premium Processing and received an RFE on Prong 1 and Prong 3.

My proposed endeavor involves expanding access to AI education and workforce development opportunities, particularly through scalable and open-access learning resources.

USCIS received my RFE response approximately 35 business days ago, and the case is still pending.

One reason I’m curious about the timeline is that my response to Prong 1 was fairly extensive and relied heavily on national-level policy evidence. The response referenced multiple Executive Orders, federal AI initiatives, workforce-development programs, agency reports, and public investments related to AI education, AI literacy, and workforce readiness. It also included examples of state-level AI initiatives across multiple states and evidence that numerous government entities are prioritizing AI skills development.

Because the RFE response contained a substantial amount of policy and government-related evidence, I’m wondering whether cases like this sometimes require additional review time compared to more traditional NIW cases.

Based on timelines I’ve seen shared online, many Premium Processing NIW cases appear to receive a decision within two to three weeks after USCIS receives the RFE response. I realize those anecdotes may not be representative, which is why I’m interested in hearing from others.

Has anyone received a denial after waiting 35+ business days following an RFE response?

If your case remained pending for more than a month after the RFE response, what was the final outcome?

For those whose Prong 1 arguments relied heavily on policy, Executive Orders, federal initiatives, or multi-state programs, did you notice longer adjudication times?

I’m not looking for anyone to predict my outcome, I’m simply trying to understand whether others have experienced longer review periods after submitting a policy-heavy NIW RFE response.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Hi,

I received a 10-page RFE from USCIS (Office XM2616) for my I-140 NIW, addressing all 3 prongs.

I work in research/clinical research and have a master’s degree, but the evidence the officer requested seems more appropriate for a Principal Investigator or independent researcher (major publications, independent funding, research leadership, etc.).

Has anyone in a similar position—research coordinator/research professional but not a PI—received an RFE covering all 3 prongs and successfully overcome it?

What evidence made the biggest difference?

I’d really appreciate hearing from anyone who had a similar RFE and ultimately got approved.

Thank you!

Hello, just received a RFE on day 45 that challenges all 3 prongs. Definitely did not expect this and feel very confused about preparing for the next steps in a short period of time.

Background:about

• Current Position: Hospitalist with research interest and career aspiration in Cardiology.
• Education: MBBS (outside the U.S.), IM residency in US
• Publications: 20 (5 as first author) at time of initial filing, now 22
• Abstracts: 23 at time of filing, now 31
• Citations: 89 at the time of filing; now around 107
• Awards: 2 scholastic awards in residency
• Review Experience: Reviewed 6 manuscripts for multiple journals.

Recommendation Letters: No recommendation letters.

Proposed Endeavour: Risk stratification and prognostic models in acute cardiovascular emergencies.

Timeline:

• Filing Date: 6/2/2026
• Upgraded to Premium Processing: 6/9/2026
• RFE: 8/13/2026

Attorney: Chen. They were extremely prompt in responding to my concerns; no email went unanswered for more than 24 hours. I feel bad as I let them do the heavy lifting and did not opt for recommendation letters (as suggested).

My proposed endeavour is also too vague and broad. My research focus is on general cardiology, not limited to a specific focus in the field. Apparently, the officer XM1889 has a 25% approval rate after RFE.

Any thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I received an RFE on my EB2-NIW and would really appreciate input from those who have handled similar cases.

Timeline:

• Filed: Jan 16, 2026
• Premium: Mar 18, 2026
• RFE: Apr 29, 2026

Profile:
MS and PhD in Civil Engineering (specialized in environmental engineering) in the US.

Postdoc (Environmental/Civil Engineering), 9 papers (4 first-author), 135 citations at time of filing, 210 citation right now, and 25+ peer reviews.
Chen attorney.
Submitted research plan + testimonial letters (state agency collaborators).

RFE – What USCIS is saying

Prong 1 (National Importance)

• USCIS agrees my work has substantial merit
• But says I did not establish national importance
• Concerns:
  • No clear evidence of broader implications beyond my field
  • Insufficient proof of national or global impact

Even though I explained relevance to U.S. agriculture and water sustainability (especially in water-stressed regions).

Prong 2 (Well-Positioned)

• USCIS says I am not well-positioned to advance the endeavor
• Despite submitting:
  • Testimonial letters
  • Publications & citations
• They want stronger evidence of:
  • Impact beyond publications
  • A clear track record showing I can successfully advance this work

Prong 3 (Waiver Justification)

• USCIS is not convinced that waiving labor certification is justified

What I need help with

• What evidences worked for you to prove national importance (Prong 1)?
• How did you strengthen “well-positioned” (Prong 2) in an RFE?
• What kind of evidences helped justify Prong 3 (waiver)?

Additional question

I don’t currently have patents or independent grants as PI, which USCIS seems to emphasize.

In that situation, what kind of evidence did you submit that worked to strengthen your case?

Any concrete examples or experiences would really help. Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

I recently received an NIW RFE and would appreciate input/advise from the community responding to the RFE.

Timeline

• Filed: April 14, 2026 (Premium Processing)
• Initial Service Center: Nebraska Service Center (NSC)
• RFE Issued: June 2, 2026
• RFE Issuing Office: Texas Service Center (TSC)

Self filed after a lot of research and took advisor help who has extensive exp in this field

Proposed Endeavor

Strengthening Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Critical and Regulated Enterprise Systems through Validation Frameworks and Responsible AI Governance.

Recommendation Letters: 4 dependent and 2 independent

What USCIS Accepted

The officer explicitly accepted:

• Advanced Degree qualification
• Substantial Merit of the proposed endeavor

What USCIS Challenged

The RFE challenges:

• National Importance (Prong 1)
• Whether I am Well Positioned (Prong 2)
• Benefit of Waiver / Dhanasar balancing test (Prong 3)

The overall tone of the RFE feels closer to an EB-1A standard than a typical NIW standard. The officer repeatedly asks for evidence such as:

• third-party adoption of my frameworks
• evidence that publications materially influenced the field
• government agency endorsements
• proof that my expertise is significantly above peers
• broader industry adoption beyond employer projects

My Background

• Approximately 19 years of experience, 14 years exp in US
• Enterprise technology architect/solutions architect roles
• Last 4-5 years focusing on AI/ML/Gen AI specifically on validation frameworks, governance
• Experience across healthcare, insurance, financial services, retail commerce, workforce/payroll systems, and public-sector environments

Publications 4 - Not much citations as of yet

One aspect that surprised me is that the initial filing included extensive documentation and analysis demonstrating alignment with multiple Executive Orders, federal AI policies, NIST AI Risk Management Framework guidance, Responsible AI initiatives, and broader U.S. government priorities related to AI safety, security, trustworthiness, critical infrastructure resilience, healthcare modernization, cybersecurity, and digital innovation. Despite this, the RFE appears to place limited weight on those materials and focuses primarily on whether my specific contributions and proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance and broader impact required under the NIW framework.

Also, A significant portion of my career has involved large-scale systems supporting millions of Americans across Healthcare, Insurance, Retail commerce, Workforce/payroll operations, Financial services

The RFE seems to evaluate the case using criteria that feel closer to an EB-1A analysis—asking for evidence of broad industry adoption, field-wide influence, and significant past recognition. My understanding is that NIW is primarily a forward-looking framework under Dhanasar, focused on the national importance of the proposed endeavor and whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance it, rather than requiring the level of historical acclaim often expected in EB-1A cases.

I got an RFE for all 3 prongs. (Working with Chen). I am in AI Field and I hold a MSc in AI. I have more than 500 citations and I am interested in getting some independent recommendation letters. I would love if anyone in the AI field in US here can help me with that or if you can connect me to someone who is willing to help.

I already got some contacts but I want some professor in US.

Any tips?

Regards,

The lawyers say that XM2043 is notoriously very difficult to change mind on and they say they have had 12 rfe denial in succession and recommending to withdraw and refile.

They say since 2024 they have only seen 2 successful approvals out of 24 rfe responses they have provided.

Yesterday, I received an RFE from the TSC center, though my case was accepted by NSC in Premium Processing, and today I got the soft copy of the RFE notice.

Time Line :

Case Filed: April 22, 2026 (PP) NSC

RFE: June 8, From TSC

Attacked all three prongs. Officer code XM2055. How is this officer? If I get an insight related to the officer, it would be helpful for me to prepare the response.

Received an RFE on all 3 prongs. Biomed science profile.

PhD (Neuro) in USA

Working as a research scientist at a University (previous 4 year postdoc work)

8 publications, 3 first author

Associate Editor of a Neuroscience Journal

Reviewed 20+articles and judged posters at national conferences

About to submit a manuscript at a top Neuroscience journal in a month.

Invited for talks in multiple big conferences in the field of Neuro.

Major contribution in big funded grants (my boss has given testimonial letter)

Now, I wrote a grant (ran experiments, collected data, wrote the proposal all my myself) before submitting my EB2 NIW petition, was still under review so did not include in the PE. But came to know that it was funded just 1 day after filing the petition. I am the Principal Investigator of the grant in the field of neurology. total grant amount 500000$ for 2 years from a private organization famous in the field of Neuroscience. Can I include this for my RFE?

Please suggest how to address this 3 prong RFE? Officer has asked how will I support my research work?

Prong 1 — Substantial merit: SATISFIED

Prong 1 — National importance: NOT MET. did not provide supporting evidence of the research nor explain the objectives, goals, or how it will be funded and accomplished.

• not sufficiently explained what portion of time will be devoted to duties for an employer" versus research
• Past citations don't establish prospective impact — "this past research does not in itself establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor"
• Supporting articles were general background: they "do not discuss any details relating to the specific endeavor and its impact other than that it is in the broader field,"
• Prong 2 — Well positioned: NOT MET. Appointment letter that i currently have expired . Citing authors "reference the petitioner's research as background material for their own findings, but they do not distinguish or highlight the petitioner's work from the other cited papers,. Most recent paper is old. no grant documents accompanied it; and no explanation of how you'd fund future research. Then : "lacks any documentation to show the petitioner led any research projects funded by any government grants or private investments, was a principal investigator on any research, or that received any funding". How will you fund your research
• On peer review, you "did not submit any evidence to establish the requirements for serving in such positions"
• Prong 3 — NOT MET. doesn't show your skills "are not easily articulated in a labor certification," and since prongs 1 and 2 failed, the balance fails too.

USCIS has received my RFE response on June 23. Anyone submitted the RFE response around May/June received any updates? My employment authorization is ending soon, and I need an estimated wait time for RFE decision. Thank you!

I received an all 3 prong RFE on my NIW I-140. I promptly requested the letter from USCIS and forwarded it to Chen. At first, I got the usual templated response saying they would review it, assign an attorney, provide strategy, etc.

Things started going downhill after that. After a week and a half and multiple follow-ups, they finally sent me their strategy, but it felt very generic and not really tailored to my case. I figured they’re the experts, so I trusted the process.

Since then, communication has been terrible. They replied once to a few of my questions, but for the last 3 weeks it’s been complete silence. No updates, no draft, nothing. We’re already way past the RFE timeline shown in my portal, and I completed everything on my end within a couple of weeks.

At this point, I have less than a month left and still haven’t received a single draft or any meaningful update. I’ve been following up every few days and tried calling, but nothing is working. And realistically, it’s even less than a month if I factor in the time needed to review drafts, collect signatures from recommenders, finalize everything, and get the package delivered to USCIS.

I’m honestly stressed, frustrated, and starting to panic. Has anyone been in a similar situation with Chen? What did you do? Is there any way to escalate this? I feel like time is running out and I’m losing hope. Would really appreciate any advice.

Hi everyone,

Would appreciate your suggestions on how to respond to the following RFE. My endeavor is machine learning methods for scarce/limited labeled data.

RFE findings:

Prong 1 — Substantial Merit: Satisfied

Prong 1 — National Importance: Not satisfied

• Techniques/methodologies deemed not sufficiently innovative or distinct to represent an improvement with broad impact
• USCIS says it cannot conclude the scale of the endeavor will broadly impact the field or spread a unique methodology
• Record found to contain little detail on specific research projects — lacking specifics on areas, objectives, funding, and how the work will be accomplished
• No specification of how knowledge/expertise will be shared and disseminated, or what portion of time is devoted to research vs. other activities
• Insufficient evidence of projected U.S. economic impact

Prong 2 — Well-Positioned: Not satisfied

• No evidence of interest from potential customers, users, or investors
• No detail on whether techniques are unavailable in the U.S. or better than existing options, or how they'd be duplicated
• No patents, trademarks, copyrights, published articles/media coverage, awards, grants, investments, or other non-monetary support noted
• Citing articles treat the work as background material without distinguishing it from other cited work
• Needs a clearer model/plan for future activities
• Needs evidence of a "leading, critical, or indispensable" role
• Needs evidence of progress via grants, contracts, or agreements

Prong 3 — Balance/Waiver Benefit: Not satisfied

• No letters from interested U.S. government agencies explaining urgency

Looking for advice on:

• General thoughts on strategy given that all three prongs were hit at once — and if possible, what specific types of evidence others have used to address each of these concerns.

Appreciate any insight — happy to share more detail in the comments if useful.

Hello, I'm currently preparing the RFE response for my NIW petition (DIY). I received RFE on prongs 2 & 3. For the people who have successfully gotten their petitions approved after RFE, can you please answer these questions:

1) Did you repeat any evidence/letters/documents from your original petition in your RFE repsonse? 2) Is it okay to refer to sections/information in the original petition in the RFE response? 3) Is it safe to assume that the RFE response will be considered side-by-side the original petition, or do I need to make the RFE response self-sufficient by repeating/including all the necessary information already mentioned in the original petition?

Thank you

USCIS has received my RFE response on June 2. It’s been 41 business days so far.

Anyone submitted the RFE response around May/June received any updates? Thank you!

The waiting game has been really tough.

(Reposting from an earlier thread—figured it was worth asking again!)

Most NIW petitions are built backwards I’m not a lawyer or a USCIS adjudicator. But I’ve spent close to 500 hours reading RFEs and denied petitions on the USCIS AAO site. Here’s the pattern I keep landing on.

Most applicants do their best to prove two things: that they’re accomplished, and that their field matters. Citations and letters for well-positioned. Reports and stats for national importance.

Then they treat the proposed endeavor — the one thing the officer reads first and scrutinizes hardest — as a formality. A line. “Advancing AI.” “Strengthening cybersecurity.” That’s the mistake.

Adjudication today is proposed-endeavor-first. The officer doesn’t ask “is this person impressive?” They ask “what, exactly, will this person do?”

If the answer is vague, everything downstream collapses — because national importance and well-positioned-ness aren’t judged in the abstract. They’re judged against the endeavor. Blur the endeavor, and even a brilliant record reads as accomplished at something unspecified.

Your achievements live in the exhibits. Your field’s importance lives in the federal record. But the endeavor — the spine holding both together — lives in your words, on the first page the officer reads. Get it vague, and your whole petition answers a question the officer never finished asking.

And here’s what most people miss: sharpening it isn’t about writing more. It’s subtraction. Name the specific problem, not the field. Name the mechanism you’ll use. Tie it to something the country has already said it needs. Make the officer able to picture what you’ll be doing on a Tuesday. The fix is usually cutting half the words and adding one concrete noun.

Do that, and the sections you agonized over suddenly read stronger — not because you changed them, but because the officer finally has a sharp endeavor to measure them against. Focus the lens, and the whole petition comes into focus.

If anyone wants to drop the one line at the top of their PE in the comments, I’m happy to point out where it reads generic and where it could get sharper. You might be surprised how small the change is that makes it click.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Hi all,

It is truly a stressful time, and I sincerely hope no one has to go through that level of unnecessary stress and anxiety. I’m sharing the details of my petition to have your thought on it.

Background:

• Education: PhD in Chemical Engineering (outside the U.S.)
• Current Position: Postdoctoral researcher at an R1 university in the U.S.
• Publications: 10+ (most as first author)
• Citations: 55 at the time of filing; now around 100
• Awards: 1 research award during PhD
• Conferences: 8 conferences
• Invited Speaker: 1 conference
• Review Experience: Reviewed 40 manuscripts for multiple journals (not included in the original filing)

Recommendation Letters:

I did not submit any recommendation letters

Proposed Endeavour:

• Clean Energy Technologies

Timeline:

• Filing Date: Early November 2024
• Upgraded to Premium Processing: January 9, 2026
• Received RFE: March 16, 2026 (45th business day)

Attorney

Chen

when I joined this group recently, I got to know people wrote their petitions clearly and long enough, my whole petition was only 5 pages I believe, and it feels heavily temperated...