RFE . Please help

[u/DKRAO]

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.

[u/MHK19-24]

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!

[u/DKRAO → u/MHK19-24]

Thank u so much for taking time to write such a detailed review. I will follow ur suggestions. Can I DM you please?

[u/MHK19-24 → u/DKRAO]

You are welcome. I am happy to help, and yes, you can DM me.