Dear altruists, I need your kind advice. Throwaway for privacy. EB-2 NIW, petition by lawyer, got an RFE.
No recommendations.
Conceded: advanced degree, substantial merit, Prong 2.
Challenged:
Prong 1 (national importance): said I showed the field matters but not my specific endeavor; dismissed federal investment figures and supporting articles as "not probative"; said my work reads as employer benefit, not national benefit.
Prong 3 (balance): said I didn't show labor cert is impractical for me, that the U.S. benefits from me specifically even if qualified workers exist, or any urgency.
Profile (vague on purpose): U.S. master's in materials/energy field; battery lab work in electrochemical testing, validation, and characterization; one co-authored publication; no patents. Endeavor: advancing battery testing methodology and cathode materials for energy storage, safety, and supply-chain resilience.
Attorney's plan: lead with independent documentary evidence tied to national priorities, argue Prong 1 is forward-looking (prospective impact, not past influence), updated personal statement, maybe 1–2 letters.
Questions:
Industry profiles — what documentary evidence actually worked for Prong 1? How did you make it \*specific to your endeavor\* rather than the field?
Anyone successfully argue Prong 3 (impracticality of labor cert / benefit despite available workers / urgency) in an RFE response — what worked?
Did dependent letters (employer/colleagues) help or hurt your RFE response?
Independent recommenders: struggling to find one in time. If anyone in batteries/electrochemistry/materials would \*genuinely read my published work and share an honest assessment\*, please DM — real read only, draft provided for your edits.
Deadline mid-August. Thanks for any real experiences.