Top 5 EB-1A RFE Patterns in 2026 and How to Respond

Why RFEs Are Increasing in 2026

Request for Evidence (RFE) issuance rates for EB-1A Extraordinary Ability petitions have risen noticeably in 2026. USCIS adjudicators are applying heightened scrutiny to several criteria, particularly for applicants from the technology sector. Understanding these patterns is essential for building a petition that either avoids an RFE entirely or positions you for a strong response.

Based on our analysis of dozens of EB-1A RFEs received across our practice in early 2026, we have identified five recurring themes that account for the majority of evidence requests.

Pattern 1: Insufficient Evidence of Original Contributions

The most common RFE pattern challenges the "original contributions of major significance" criterion. USCIS is increasingly asking petitioners to demonstrate not just that they made contributions, but that those contributions have been widely adopted or recognized by others in the field.

A typical RFE in this category states that the petitioner has not established that their contributions rise to the level of "major significance" in the field as a whole, rather than just within their employer's organization.

How to respond:

• Provide evidence of adoption — show that others have built upon, cited, or implemented your work
• Obtain letters from independent experts (not colleagues or supervisors) who can attest to the significance of your contributions
• Include quantitative metrics: citation counts, download statistics, revenue impact, user adoption numbers
• Demonstrate industry-wide impact through media coverage, conference invitations, or inclusion in textbooks and standards

Pattern 2: Questioning the "Major Significance" Standard

Related to Pattern 1, USCIS officers are drawing a sharper line between contributions that are important to an employer versus contributions of "major significance" to the field. This is especially prevalent for software engineers and product managers whose impact may be measured in business metrics rather than academic citations.

How to respond:

• Frame contributions in terms of field-wide impact rather than company-specific results
• Use independent expert letters from academics or industry leaders at other organizations
• Document patents that have been cited by others' patent applications
• Show conference presentations at top-tier venues where your work influenced subsequent research

Pattern 3: Weak Expert Opinion Letters

USCIS is increasingly scrutinizing the quality and specificity of expert opinion letters. Generic letters that simply list the petitioner's achievements without providing independent analysis of their significance are being given little weight. Officers specifically note when letters appear templated or when the expert has no demonstrated knowledge of the petitioner's specific work.

How to respond:

• Ensure each letter writer explains their own qualifications to evaluate the petitioner's work
• Letters should contain specific, detailed analysis of why particular contributions are significant — not just repeat the resume
• Include letters from experts who have independently used or been influenced by the petitioner's work
• Provide evidence of the letter writer's standing in the field (publications, positions, awards)
• Avoid form letters — each letter should focus on different aspects of the petitioner's qualifications

Pattern 4: Comparable Evidence Issues

When petitioners use comparable evidence under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(4) instead of standard criteria, USCIS is demanding stronger justification for why the standard criteria do not apply and why the comparable evidence is truly equivalent. This frequently affects applicants in newer fields like artificial intelligence or cryptocurrency where traditional metrics may not apply.

How to respond:

• Clearly explain why the standard criteria are inadequate for evaluating accomplishments in this particular field
• Provide evidence that the proposed comparable evidence is of equivalent significance to the standard criteria
• Include expert testimony explaining the norms and metrics of recognition in the specific field
• Document how leaders in the field are typically recognized, if not through traditional academic channels

Pattern 5: Salary Evidence Challenges

The "high salary or significantly high remuneration" criterion is seeing more RFEs questioning the comparison methodology. USCIS wants to see that your salary is high relative to others in the same specific occupation and geographic area, not just high in general terms.

How to respond:

• Use Bureau of Labor Statistics data specific to your occupation code (SOC) and metropolitan area
• Include multiple salary surveys (Glassdoor, Levels.fyi, Radford, Mercer) for the specific role
• Document total compensation including stock options, bonuses, and other remuneration
• Show that your compensation is in the top percentile (ideally top 10% or higher) for your specific position

Strategic Response Framework

1. Analyze the RFE carefully — identify exactly which criteria are being challenged and what specific evidence is requested
2. Conduct a gap analysis — compare what was submitted against what the officer is requesting
3. Gather new evidence — obtain additional expert letters, updated metrics, and independent documentation
4. Draft a structured response — address each point raised by the officer systematically with clear evidence references
5. Include a comprehensive index — organize the response so the officer can easily locate each piece of evidence
6. Submit before the deadline — RFE responses typically have an 84-day window, but aim to submit well in advance

Prevention Is Better Than Response

The best RFE strategy is to avoid one altogether. When we prepare EB-1A petitions, we anticipate adjudicator questions and preemptively address them. Every criterion we claim is supported with multiple types of evidence: metrics, expert letters, documentation, and a clear narrative connecting the evidence to the regulatory standard.

If you have received an RFE on your EB-1A petition, do not panic — an RFE is an opportunity to strengthen your case. Contact our office for a thorough review and strategic response plan.