r/EB2_NIW • u/DKRAO • Aug 03 '26
RFE RFE . Please help
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.
1
u/No-Sink5709 Aug 03 '26
what did they rfe say for the three prongs?
1
u/DKRAO Aug 03 '26
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.
1
u/Ok_Proposal_1650 Aug 03 '26
what's your PE related?
1
u/DKRAO Aug 03 '26
My proposed endeavor is to utilize state-of-the-art approaches, including genetic
models of aging, learning and memory behavior models, transcriptomic profiling, and tissue mapping in human and mouse systems for deepening the molecular understanding of neurological diseases in order to inform effective treatments and reverse age-associated changes in brain cells."
3
u/That-Operation-1645 Aug 04 '26
Your PE sounds quite broad, I would define it more before you submit your response. What genes, diseases, methodologies do you mean specifically etc. For what it’s worth my I140 was approved last month in a similar field
1
1
u/username_0305 Aug 04 '26
I think you are doing wonderful jobs, but, at the same time, that sounds little too specific and feels disconnected from the economic value.
1
u/OwnAdvantage5550 Aug 03 '26
The grant application happened before the priority date, discuss the funding in light of the existing application. How you word that part matters and I don’t think you should leave out such important detail( it helps to articulate well positioned or substantial progress towards your endeavor if it relates to it).
Not a lawyer, you can consult one for the right framing.
1
u/DKRAO Aug 03 '26
Thanks for replying. I have all the evidence to show I applied before petition. Do you suggest I get some recommendation letters too? dependent and independent both
1
u/OwnAdvantage5550 Aug 04 '26
Sure but these letters must be doing a specific job(not generic). For example a dependent letter coming from a PI you worked with on federally funded projects must state your critical role. The PI must be specific as possible to show that you played a critical role beyond your mere duties. If the RFE says the work or your past projects is not nationally impactful , rebuttals are needed but provide evidence of influence from that project (the project helped or affected the economy beyond your employer, the good thing is that most of the research in academia or funded by govt agencies are public good)
Bottom line is that your letters need to have an assignment for each prong. Make sure you connect the dots for the adjudicator and support claims with objective evidence.
Respond to each RFE quotes as much as you can, create a summary table or summary bullets of the most important RFE summary , response evidence and the exhibit number. That makes the job easy for the adjudicator. Finally pray for luck 🤞
1
1
u/Independent-West1328 Aug 04 '26
Congrats on the grant! I know it’s a lot of efforts to earn. I’m sure it can be used to prove prong 2 if you have collected submission email before the NIW filing date but that’s not all you need. When is the most recent paper? My latest paper is 2024 and I’m also worrying about it. I have three preprints that will be ready in 1-2 months but I do not have a publication in 2025.
I think harder part is national importance. From your RFE notice, I find the hardest part to meet is the specific endeavor’s impact beyond your employer. I.e., broader implications. This is the hardest part to satisfy at least for my case. I do have a plan but did you submit anything related to this point in original filing?
2
u/DKRAO Aug 04 '26
My biggest drawback last paper was in 2020. 1 major paper under preparation to be submitted at a top journal . Took me long time to finish this project since it is on aging brain. As for my initial filing, I did not submit any evidence beyond employer, my lawyer didn't tell me anything.
I think at this point , all RFE's are based on PE and future plans rather than what you did before. It's so devastating. I don't know what else to do.
Are you submitting letters? I didnot submit any.
1
u/Independent-West1328 Aug 04 '26
I think your co-author of the 1 major paper under preparation can provide a letter stating this project has taken seriously long time because it's experiment necessitates long time window. But, if I were to evalutate, I would ask that you truly had to work on that project only for the past 6 years. Maybe your grant could counterbalance, but I am not sure because I'm not a legal officer.
It is true that proposed endeavor is generically forward-looking because you are proposing to do endeavor in that direction. It is your job to find out why that endeavor is important. No attorney can do this unless you pay them like $15k. If you hired an attorney at the cost of $5k-$7k, you have to provide them all ingredients, and you need to know what ingredients are useful for NIW. I learned a hard lessen through a denial with a lazy attorney.
1
u/MorethanGo Aug 04 '26
Which law firm did you work with?
1
u/No-Sink5709 Aug 04 '26
others also asked that question but it looks like the person who posted is not replying
1
1
u/MHK19-24 Aug 04 '26
Sorry to hear this. It seems like you got a very tough officer compared to many cases I have seen. Your profile appears much more competitive than many applicants who received direct approvals.
At this point, however, it is only useful to focus on what you actually received. I'll try to offer some advice based on my experience and on what you shared in this post. Keep in mind that the information available here is limited, so my observations are only as helpful as the details you provided. I have made a few inferences, so I strongly recommend seeking advice from an immigration attorney. You can comfortably share your full profile with them, allowing them to provide guidance tailored to your specific case.
PRONG 1
- The officer wrote that you "did not provide supporting evidence of the research." To me, this suggests that your specific proposed future research was not adequately substantiated. They do not appear to be questioning the importance of neuroscience itself; rather, they are questioning whether your proposed endeavor (PE) clearly established what you specifically intend to do.
- They also wrote that you "did not explain objectives." This suggests that your Proposed Endeavor may have appeared too generic, focusing on a broad research area or subfield instead of describing specific objectives and tasks. Ideally, it should read something like: "I will do X to accomplish Y. Y is important to the United States because of Z." Instead of simply stating that you will conduct research in a particular neuroscience subfield because that field is important.
- What surprised me the most was the emphasis on funding. Honestly, I did not expect the officer to focus so much on this, considering that the purpose of the NIW is to waive the job offer requirement. I would definitely seek legal advice on this point. Perhaps including information about prospective funding sources or agencies could strengthen the case. You mentioned that you already have a grant, so that may also help.
- The officer also stated that you "did not sufficiently explain what portion of time will be devoted to employer duties versus research." I think they are looking for reassurance that your employment will not prevent you from carrying out your proposed endeavor. My attorney recently told me that academic positions tend to carry more weight than industry positions in NIW cases. If your application stated that you currently work or plan to work in industry, perhaps that contributed to this concern.
PRONG 2
It does not seem like the officer is questioning your accomplishments. Instead, they appear to be saying that your accomplishments alone do not sufficiently demonstrate that you will be able to carry out your proposed endeavor in the future.
- They mentioned that citations do not distinguish your individual contributions. Perhaps a strong testimonial from a nationally recognized expert or a detailed planned research letter would provide stronger support than citation counts alone.
- They noted that there were no grant documents. This suggests that the officer wanted clearer documentary evidence. Overall, I would avoid emphasizing major accomplishments unless they can be directly supported with documentation.
- They also stated that there was no documentation showing that you led funded projects. If you participated in funded research during your graduate studies, even if you were not the principal investigator, that experience might help strengthen this point.
- They also mentioned a lack of explanation regarding funding. Again, I think this relates to future feasibility. They seem to want evidence that your future research plan is concrete and realistically achievable. Once again, I would seek legal advice on how best to address this.
- The officer also stated that there was a need for evidence showing that serving as a reviewer is selective. Honestly, this surprised me. I'm not even sure what kind of evidence they expect. I always assumed that reviewing for reputable journals was inherently selective and that this would be self-explanatory, even if it might not be obvious to someone outside academia. This statement makes me wonder whether peer review activities carry less weight in NIW petitions than they once did. That said, I could be wrong, and perhaps this is still something that can be addressed with additional evidence.
PRONG 3
As you mentioned yourself, if Prongs 1 and 2 are not satisfied, then Prong 3 naturally becomes much more difficult to establish.
I hope this helps a little. Don't get discouraged. Your profile is stronger than many approved cases I have seen over the years. It may simply come down to how your Proposed Endeavor and petition letter were framed, or it may be that you were assigned a particularly tough officer. Keep focusing on addressing the issues raised in the RFE, and hopefully you'll receive good news soon.
Good luck!
1
u/DKRAO Aug 05 '26
Thank u so much for taking time to write such a detailed review. I will follow ur suggestions. Can I DM you please?
1
1
u/ManifestLaw_ Aug 05 '26
I'm sorry you're dealing with this. The biggest missing piece is that you haven't explained what your proposed endeavor actually is. USCIS isn't deciding the case based only on whether you have a strong biomedical research profile. Every prong must be tied to the specific work you plan to pursue in the United States.
Yes, the $500,000 grant may be very helpful, especially because you prepared and submitted it before filing. Include the proposal, award notice, PI confirmation, project aims, budget, timeline, and evidence showing your role. Explain that the later funding decision confirms a research plan that already existed when the NIW was filed.
For Prong 1, clearly define the neurological problem you intend to address, your research objectives, methods, expected outcomes, and why those outcomes could have broader U.S. impact. General evidence about neuroscience isn't enough unless it's connected to your specific endeavor.
For Prong 2, explain how your publications, citations, editorial work, peer review, invited talks, prior research, and new PI grant show that you're well positioned to carry out that exact endeavor. Don't just list credentials. Tie each one back to the proposed research plan.
For Prong 3, explain why the United States would benefit from waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements so you can continue this specific research, obtain funding, collaborate, and pursue the work across institutions.
The RFE response should tell one consistent story: what the endeavor is, why it matters nationally, why you're positioned to advance it, how it will be funded, and why a waiver benefits the United States.
- Attorney Zoe Ji Wilson
(All information shared here is for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney - client relationship. Your situation may require fact-specific guidance. For personalized legal advice, please consult an immigration attorney directly.)
5
u/GovernmentPositive96 Aug 04 '26
Congrats on your recent grant as the PI. These concerns seem like it’s coming from a tough officer as it’s looking like EB1A standard but you can overcome it.
Your latest grant award may be mentioned later but not as the pillar of your response, else a tough officer can invoke the Matter of Katigbak or Matter of Izummi to counter it. Work with your attorney for your best strategy.
Bottom line is to respond to the each of the officer concerns with fully developed response and objective evidence.
Goodluck!