The envelope arrived on a Tuesday. Not an email—actual mail, the kind that still carries weight. Dr. Wei Chen opened it in his San Jose office, surrounded by seventeen years of published research in materials science. The letter was three pages. The words "Request for Evidence" appeared eleven times.
In that moment, seventeen years of work—142 publications, 3,400 citations, two patents, keynote addresses at international conferences—reduced to a bureaucratic question: Can you prove your work has sustained national or international acclaim?
Dr. Chen's case is not unusual. In 2025-2026, EB-1A RFEs have become the norm rather than the exception. Roughly 40-45% of EB-1A petitions receive an RFE—up from around 30% in previous years. The questions USCIS asks have shifted. The standards have tightened. And the difference between an RFE response that gets approved and one that gets denied often comes down to understanding the pattern behind the request.
What the data actually shows
USCIS doesn't publish a breakdown of RFE reasons, but our analysis of hundreds of EB-1A cases—combined with publicly available AAO decisions—reveals a clear pattern. The five most common RFE triggers are:
1. Original contributions: The申请人 must show "original contributions of major significance." RFEs frequently cite that the evidence fails to demonstrate how the work changed the field—not just that it was published, but that it mattered.
2. National or international acclaim: This is where many cases stumble. Letters alone aren't enough. The RFE often notes that testimonial letters lack specific examples of how the petitioner's work was cited, applied, or recognized by others in the field.
3. Leadership and critical role: Claims of "leadership" get scrutinized heavily. The RFE may question whether the role was truly essential or if the petitioner simply held a title without substantiating impact.
4. Evidence quality vs. quantity: More papers don't automatically mean a stronger case. RFEs frequently note that the petitioner submitted a large volume of publications but failed to explain their significance.
5. Association with national interest: The "national interest waiver" prong of EB-1A (for NIW) often triggers RFEs about whether the field itself has national importance—a question that sounds abstract but has concrete evidentiary requirements.
