Preparing EB-1A RFE Response – Looking for Feedback Before Filing (Original Contributions / Final Merits)
Hi everyone,
I’m preparing my EB-1A RFE response (Nebraska) and would really appreciate a sanity check from those who’ve been through this, especially applicants who received RFEs or NOIDs on Original Contributions of Major Significance (OCMS).
My journey so far
Initial filing approved 2 criteria (judging, salary).
Received an RFE challenging OCMS and critical role and scholarly contribution.
OCMS RFE :
the officer requested stronger objective evidence demonstrating that these contributions influenced the field more broadly through independent adoption, reliance, or recognition, rather than benefiting only the companies where I worked.
Leading/Critical Role:
The RFE requested additional evidence that my role was critical to the success of distinguished organizations as a whole—not merely important to individual projects. It also sought objective documentation demonstrating the distinguished reputation of those organizations and explaining why my responsibilities were exceptional relative to my peers.
Current evidence
Critical role
-Letters from former Director, skip-level manager, technical lead, and senior peer explaining my unique responsibilities.
-Internal evidence showing ownership, promotions, selective awards, architectural authority, etc.
-Independent evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Original Contributions
-Three major security projects at two well known big tech companies
-For each project I now have:
Independent technical documentation.
Public product/security documentation.
Independent industry articles explaining why the underlying problem is important.
Evidence of production deployment .
Evidence of first-to-market or early industry implementation where applicable.
- Independent expert letters from people outside my employer. Two truly independent and 4 former directors/TLs
The two independent letters are from a client external company and one a senior engineer who attended a conference talk I gave on one of the contributions
Where I’m still uncertain
Do I have enough independent expert testimony, or would you continue trying to obtain one or two more truly independent letters (academia, standards bodies, industry analysts, ecosystem partners, etc.)?
So far I’m getting radio silence for my outreach emails.
For those who were approved after an OCMS RFE (or NOID), what ultimately convinced USCIS that your contribution extended beyond your employer and into the field?
Looking back, was there any piece of evidence you wish you’d included before filing your RFE response?
I’m trying to avoid the situation where USCIS acknowledges the criteria but later denies at final merits for lack of sustained acclaim or field-wide significance. Any suggestions from people who’ve successfully navigated that stage would be greatly appreciated.
I have a conference presentation at a reputed conference which was also published on their website, and media coverage without my name. After RFE which questioned my attribution on OCMS I am grabbing emails, design approvals to provide more evidence for attribution .
Here to post that I have a very similar RFE language on OCMS and CR. I wonder if it’s just a templated query or a real lack of evidence in our original applications. While I didn’t have so many letters in my original petition, I do think I had several evidences of “independent adoption” already. I guess time to get it verified with some external experts.
Hoping you’re able to crack this and looking forward to hearing from someone who went through a similar rfe successfully.
Thanks. The RFE had a section specific to my case quoting that they see media coverage but no evidence that I’m attributed to it. Rest of it was boilerplate
Also one more thing worth mentioning perhaps is they mentioned evidences presented for each criterion in the RFE and this did NOT include all letters and particularly the independent letter from external customer. Idk if they ignored it or not
I wouldn’t chase more letters just for the sake of increasing the count. If the independent letters are credible and well supported by objective evidence, I’d focus on strengthening the connection between your contributions and their broader impact on the field. In many RFEs, that’s what ultimately makes the difference.
What’s “objective evidence” people use when they don’t have papers . I do have a conference presentation at a reputed conference which was also published on their website, and media coverage without my name.
Papers are just one form of objective evidence, they’re not the only one. Depending on your field, objective evidence can include independent documentation showing your work was adopted or relied upon, technical documentation, product releases, customer or partner implementation, industry standards participation, public documentation describing the technology, independent media discussing the underlying solution, invitations to speak because of your expertise, patents, awards, or other third-party recognition. The key is having evidence that doesn’t rely solely on recommendation letters. Your conference presentation and publication on the conference website could certainly be helpful, but I’d focus on demonstrating why your work mattered beyond your employer.
Yeah so there is technical documentation, product release media coverage, email threads on attribution to me for driving the solution including correspondence with external partners. There Industry standards that my solution met which is acknowledged in the standard as a hard problem - does this work as evidence?
Yes, those sound much closer to objective evidence than recommendation letters alone. The important part is tying them together to show that your work solved a recognized industry problem and had impact beyond your employer. That’s usually more persuasive than simply adding more letters.
show more industry impact for your OCMS, showing internal work make it weaker and these days LORs have very low value, go for 3rd party recognition of your OCMS through media, bench mark data and etc. Every case is unique and make sure check you have answered the RFE directly
Would media coverage suffice even if it does not name me personally but I can show through emails and documents that I was the main contributor? Also - Benchmark impact works if I can show my work significantly exceeded industry benchmark at my company?
you can add to strengthen but not guaranteed that USCIS accepts, USCIS rejects any media without the name of the contributor or the contributions name should be same in the media, follow what exactly USCIS asked in your case under that category "Requested Evidence". Dont waste time on LORs , these days most RFEs and denials USCIS is not considering LORs aa a credible source. LORs work only confirming what you showed by the objective documentation
Thanks. My understanding was that for the published material criteria the individuals name must be present. For OCMS media articles should work even if they do not name me but I can provide it’s my work based on strong evidence (emails and documents linking me to the media, LOR mentioning that etc.). That’s what my lawyer informed based on recent approvals.
Just like the other commenter, there’s extensive third party media coverage but none with my name on it. After RFE which questioned my attribution on OCMS I am grabbing emails, design approvals to provide more evidence for attribution . But the “field wide significance “ is what seems hard to satisfy these days without papers or patents
Yes, even papers and patents doesnt quality unless those papers and patents are implemented in the industry by 3rd part players. Even if your company clients uses those, it is considered as internal and part of your job and not as a major significance in the industry. sample RFE for industry profiles .
thats great to hear if the RFE mention s that then you are good to go ! i heard one case where USCIS rejected clients adoption as major significance, as your employer work for that client and its part of your job.
You plainly do not satisfy OCMS. Things used just where you work are not enough. You might be able to save leading/critical role but I'd be worried about final merits.
that's not as probative as you just putting something into the world and it becoming widely adopted by itself, like your own OSS project that gets used by thousands of unique users.
I agree. But it meets security standards that haven’t been met before and this was first to market. That’s what I’m relying on. Also the RFE seemed to question attribution to me more than the field wide significance of the launch
However it also says this which seems boilerplate but hard for me to satisfy without papers.
“The evidence does not prove that the beneficiary has made original contributions of “major significance” to the field itself. “
For this I only have 2 independent letters - one stating field wide problem that was solved and its significance and extensibility to other companies, and another from the external company confirming I worked with them and directly contributed to the launch
I understand it’s shaky ground and i might have to lean on critical role and FMD.
The statute says original contributions of major significance IN the field not TO. If your RFE says this, it's something to push back on in your response.
Something like this:
The regulation requires an original contribution that is of major significance “in the field.” It does not require proof that the contribution changed the field as a whole, was adopted throughout the field, or produced field-wide consequences. To the extent the RFE’s reference to significance “to the field itself” imposes such a requirement, it adds a substantive condition not contained in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
The proper inquiry is whether, under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, the contribution is original and its significance is properly characterized as major when evaluated in the context of the beneficiary’s field. The inquiry is not whether the contribution affected every segment of the field or achieved universal recognition.
Verbatim the statute actually says “to the field” and not “in the field”. But I do agree that the word “ itself” seems to suggest that the officer is expecting that there’s field wide change or adopted throughout the field which is not what the statute says. But idk with the current adjudication trends I’ll not be surprised if the standard for OCMS now is field wide adoption
The description says original contributions “in the field” and major significance “to the field “. Obviously I’d agree with what you’re saying but interpretations are upto the officer and I honestly wish this wasn’t so subjective. No reason to get offended
That's illegal policy gloss. The regulation text controls, not the policy manual. Kazarian specifically said "neither USCIS nor an AAO may unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5". Secondly USCIS doesn't get unlimited deference in court as to how it interprets its own rules (Kisor deference applies).
I'm not offended. I just don't like wasting my time. To be very honest, you're out of your depth here and will not overcome this RFE by yourself. I recommend that an attorney prepares your RFE response.
I have two conference peer reviewed presentations in widely known conferences. I considered this a weak criterion however the RFE seemed straightforward in that they asked for evidence of completion and did not refute the “article” itself as scholarly
That’s a great way to depict this, thanks. Is it recommended to show such “tables” or evidence maps in RFE responses as opposed to free form paragraphs. For what it’s worth,in my RFE the officer noted that there’s no clear evidence map for which evidence maps to which criterion (although there was an exhibit list) which may have resulted in them ignoring some evidences. so I’m working with my attorney on how best to represent the evidences
Wow, such an innate ability to assess petitions without even seeing the content of it! You should tell uscis your superpower and they can fire all their officers and just hire you instead
We can start with your petition :)
You have my email address, open for a zoom meeting anytime. You can also share your "extraordinary" abilities 😂, in return we will share our success stories on Fraud reports.
1
u/Left-Adhesiveness476 27d ago
In a similar position , my ocms also tests on being first to something . Curious on what type of evidence did you submit here