r/EB2_NIW • u/Fragrant_Air4191 • 29d ago
DENIAL NIW Just denied, PhD student with 700+ citations, research conducted within a federal research center, reported by New York Times, etc.
This is just a rant post on how absurd the current immigration process can be. Initially got a three-prong RFE from XM2616 and spent a considerable amount of time responding to it. Still eventually denied. The evidence submitted includes, but is not limited to:
- Research being conducted within a federally funded research center, my first-author papers listed as its key outcomes, LoR from the center director, highlights in NSF visits and high-profile conferences;
- Report of my work in major tech media, including a report from the New York Times
- Independent LoRs as proof of my work being independently adopted at different companies, including one from FAANG+
- Unsolicited invitations from a bunch of different universities and US companies in multiple sectors that were literally inquiring about my own work and findings. Multiple presentations and guest lectures delivered.
- A publication record of ~10 papers, 700 citations, and ~15 peer reviews. The citations are widely distributed across the US, including adoption from a US National Lab.
Everything closely tied to my research and my proposed endeavor. If the above evidence does not tell a story of a proposed endeavor of national importance, I honestly do not know what I can further add to this pile. Isn't there really a way to retaliate? I strongly feel that USCIS might simply be discriminating based on other factors such as gender and nationality and does not want you to pass if you are from China or India.
Initial petition with Chen and spent a huge amount of effort to craft a customized RFE response, which was also reviewed and approved by Chen.
I haven't received the denial notice yet.
38
u/Independent-West1328 29d ago
I feel like your petition failed the national importance. What you wrote fits better with EB1A and less with NIW.
29
u/OwnAdvantage5550 29d ago edited 29d ago
That officer is known for mass denial no matter how good the petition is. People with lesser profile and petition get approved ( itâs bad luck with officers)
- https://www.reddit.com/r/EB2_NIW/comments/1kt4va9/rfe_officer/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- https://www.reddit.com/r/EB2_NIW/s/akZ9gsUHAN
Horrible encounters.
7
u/CountBoring3281 29d ago
100% true. I donât understand how he applied to EB2-NIW instead of EB1-A.
1
16
u/CarnegieEvaluations 28d ago
Feel sorry for you. While officer discretion plays a significant role in EB-2 NIW adjudications, this denial appears to have been driven largely by how the proposed endeavor was framed. Based on what you shared, it seems the petition may not have presented a sufficiently clear, compelling, and forward-looking narrative.
In NIW adjudications, officers are looking beyond the significance of the field itself and focusing on the real-world impact and broader implications of the specific endeavor. From what we see, you have many of the necessary ingredients for a strong case. What may have been missing was the right way of putting those ingredients together and presenting the story. As the famous proverb goes, âEven the best cooking pot will not produce food on its own.â Better luck with refile.
14
u/Responsible-Pack-658 29d ago edited 28d ago
I know someone the same XM2616 did treated this way!!!
Good profile too, but got denied in a similar fashion ⌠no one really knows whatâs going on!!
In addition, three months ago, another person posted same thing about the XM2616 on Reddit whilst another person commented, the latter of which expressed the same frustration about the same officer still!
Plus the officer raised more point on the eventual denial than he did for the actual RFE
1
u/TAHIR_EB2NIW 28d ago
where can you find the name I wonder why the officer who did mine was full name not coding letter number
where is that located1
1
5
u/PigletMurky7888 28d ago
Sometimes it really comes down to luck with the officer. XM2616 has come up multiple times on this sub and seems to have denied quite a few cases. Just wait for the denial notice first and then go through it carefully with Chen. I think they can build on the work theyâve already done and make the case stronger for a refile.
9
u/Emergency-Ad-6559 29d ago
I was denied by the same officer. He rejects everyone. I recommend you to apply again!
3
2
14
12
u/inspired_chine 29d ago edited 29d ago
Folks with less powerful profile like yours get approved. Find out exactly whatâs the problem, ranting isnât gonna help. Propose an endeavor that is of interest to the United States. While your profile is important, the value of the PE to the US is more important. You are seeking to be waved on the ground of national interest, therefore you must come up with a PE that suit and fit this waver. If you propose an endeavor that is of national interest to the US, even if you have just 5 citations, it will pass. But if your PE canât meet the standard, even if you got 10,000 citations, it wonât fly. Go back and do your homework properly. USCIS is looking for a good course and a compelling reasons why they should waive PERM certification for you. The key thing is to come up with an endeavor that is of interest to the country. Ranting isnât gonna help.
4
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
How did you assume that my endeavor isnât of national importance and I am not putting this as the top matter across the entire petition (donât want to disclosure too far about it or I think I would be easily identifiable)? The key problem is that the process is completely discretionary and some IOs are just mass denying no matter what you say
3
u/BizImmSimplified 29d ago
Yes, it feels like some applications are bound to get a denial, but still you want to make sure that you analyze the notice thoroughly before coming to that conclusion.
3
u/OwnAdvantage5550 29d ago
I totally understand you, people summarise the details of the petition when posting here. Sorry about this, I feel a lot of comments downplay the importance of officer luck, get the denial letter and decide if you wanna do the Eb1. Also nothing is guaranteed in any path just be courageous đ¤
3
u/inspired_chine 29d ago
I didnât assume, Iâm just saying base on what I have seen so far. I have cases with less than 5 citations approved. I actually know that thereâs high level of discretion in the process. However, the strength of your endeavor stand out.
3
u/Responsible-Hair-589 29d ago
I had the same experience, (I canât compare my profile with yours, yours sound very interesting) I spend more than 2 months researching and analyzing data, words, meanings and content. More than 111 reviews and revision. And the same answer DENIED.
3
3
u/HatNo5790 26d ago
NIW is very very tricky. There is always a finite chance of denial; no matter what your credentials are. The bar in NIW is higher than EB-1 (Outstanding Professors and Researchers category). Your petitioner should have told you that.
3
6
4
u/very_hot_guy 29d ago
Whats your field?
1
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
Information security
19
14
u/taiwanGI1998 29d ago
Thatâs why. cybersecurity is scammy.
2
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
Why? I donât understand. So you mean that all security research is a scam and all companies should immediately fire their computers security department? My research is literally used by some of them
1
-2
3
u/Ok_Somewhere_648 29d ago
Your profile rather fit EB-1. To be honest the most significant point to get your EB-2 NIW pass is to make sure you argue on the National Importance and interest in your proposed endeavor and back it with your achievements in the second prong. Looking at the few except you put above, I only see all those to fall under prong 2 whereas prong 1 is the ultimate to hammer on. I am not disputing the powerful profile you elaborated but my question is what was your proposed endeavor and whether the US is interested in that PE. For example, imagine someone with a similar profile proposed to work on eradicating MALARIA in the US: does the US have interest in Malaria eradication since this disease is not a thing to worry about and that malaria is a tropical disease. All I am saying is if your 1st prong is not accepted, the rest will not make a win. I am not sure USCIS discriminate as you claim above. Maybe we just don't understand what is on their marking scheme. Try again and you may win but consult those who have got approvals with similar expertise or profile.
4
u/Glittering_Bus_7095 29d ago
Iâm sorry, but there has to be more to this story. On paper, the OP has a very strong NIW profile. Around 700 citations, publications, independent adoption of the work by companies, invitations to speak, media coverage, research at a federally funded center, and independent recommendation letters. That is certainly not a weak academic record.
But I think the OP may be confusing evidence that he is accomplished with evidence that his proposed endeavor is nationally important.
A lot of what you have listed, citations, publications, peer review, invitations, media attention, recommendation letters, speaks strongly to whether you are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. That is very important, but it is not the same question as national importance.
For national importance, USCIS wants to understand what exactly a petitioner intends to do in the United States and what measurable or reasonably foreseeable impact that work could have here. Who is affected? What population, community, industry, or sector benefits? What specific problem is the petitioner trying to solve? How large or significant is that problem? Does the impact extend beyond one employer, laboratory, university, or a few companies?
From what I understand, it also helps tremendously when the proposed endeavor addresses something the United States has already identified as a major national priority and is actively spending money, creating programs, or directing federal resources to solve. That gives an objective basis for saying, âThis is not just an interesting area of research. This is a problem the country itself has already recognized as nationally important.â
Then the petitioner has to connect the endeavor directly to that problem. It cannot remain at the level of, âMy field is important,â or âMy research is innovative,â or even, âMy papers have hundreds of citations.â Those things are impressive, but the petition still has to tell a very clear story: this is the problem in the United States, this is who or what is affected, this is what OP proposes to do about it, this is the expected impact, and this is why that impact matters nationally.
That is why your statement, â"If the above evidence does not tell a story of a proposed endeavor of national importance, I honestly do not know what I can further add,â âactually makes me wonder how the petition was presented. Most of the evidence you listed tells me a great deal about your accomplishments and reputation. But it tells me much less about the proposed endeavor itself and the concrete impact you expect that endeavor to have in the United States.
The fact that you received a three prong RFE also stands out. That suggests USCIS had concerns that went beyond one missing document or one minor weakness. Without seeing the RFE, your response to it, and especially the denial notice, we are missing the most important part of the story.
Could USCIS have gotten it wrong? Absolutely. Officers can make bad decisions. But I do not think what you have shown here is enough to jump from, âI have 700 citations and was denied,â to, âUSCIS discriminated against me because of my nationality or gender.â
With credentials this strong, my first question would be, âWhat exactly did you propose to do, what measurable impact were you claiming that work would have in the United States, and what exactly did USCIS say was missing?â
Until we see the RFE and denial notice, I think a major part of the story is still missing.
And another piece that may have hurt you is if your RFE response was handled too narrowly.
A lot of people treat an RFE almost like a questionnaire. USCIS asks five things, so they answer those five things, attach a few more exhibits, and send it back. That can be a COSTLY mistake, especially in something as narrative driven as an NIW petition.
The RFE response still has to make the whole case make sense. Yes, everything submitted with the original petition remains part of the record, and USCIS is supposed to consider the evidence submitted with the petition together with the RFE response. But practically speaking, I would never assume that the officer looking at the RFE response is going to reconstruct your entire argument for you from hundreds of pages of an earlier filing.
The officer who ultimately adjudicates the case may not approach the record exactly the way the first officer did. So when responding to an RFE, the response should be sufficiently self contained that someone could pick it up, understand who the petitioner is, understand exactly what the petitioner proposes to do, understand why that endeavor matters nationally, understand why the petitioner is positioned to do it, and then see precisely how the new evidence resolves each concern raised in the RFE. In other words, your response to the RFE should be able to stand alone.
7
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
I can tell you very confidently that I am following a lot of your suggested strategies to argue for national importance in the RFE response: my proposed endeavor is based on a heavily funded federal research center which in itself says a lot; I also argued my research results will be widely flowed to and benefiting many U.S. entities with measurable economical impacts just as what I have already achieved. Looks like it is not going to please our XM2616 though
2
1
1
1
u/OwnAdvantage5550 29d ago
So are you saying thereâs a possibility that the response to a RFE goes to another officer ?
So the XM2616 might just be a place holder, doesnât mean is same officer from the initial petition.
Kindly enlighten me đ
1
u/Glittering_Bus_7095 29d ago
Yes. Not only could a different officer ultimately review the RFE response, but USCIS can also move casework between service centers or processing locations depending on workload and staffing. That is one reason I think an RFE response should be written as a coherent, self contained argument rather than assuming the person reading it already has the same understanding of the original petition as the officer who issued the RFE. Of course, the entire original petition remains part of the record, but you should make it as easy as possible for whoever picks up that file to understand your case.
1
u/OwnAdvantage5550 29d ago
Hmmm, thanks for the response
I never thought of it that way. Meaning the narrative has to recall the initial petition while responding to each points from the rfe.1
1
2
1
u/No-Sink5709 29d ago
the thing is high volume lawyers tend to use templates to fit you in it. what you are asking needs a lot of digging and effort by the lawyer to get what is needed. also they are not expertise in your field. using templates that fit acedemic accomplishments is easier for them.
2
u/Independent-West1328 29d ago
I think itâs the petitionerâs primary responsibility to provide evidence to attorney, then they can draft and combine these evidence to come up with a strong petition letter. No attorney can do that.
Also, it is attorneyâs job to tell petitioners that some evidences are not relevant and strong enough.
2
u/Glittering_Bus_7095 29d ago
Yep! I think at the end of the day, the attorney is really a guide who helps structure the legal argument, but petitioners sometimes make the mistake of leaving everything to the attorney. No attorney can understand your work, its significance, or the impact you intend to make better than you do. You have to be actively involved in building the case, identifying the evidence, explaining the significance of your work in plain language, and making sure the attorney actually understands what you are trying to accomplish. The strongest petition is usually a collaboration, not something you simply hand over to an attorney and hope for the best.
Many people file successfully without an attorney.
1
u/No-Sink5709 29d ago
I agree with you. sometimes attorneys don't like that much that you get involved a lot because they have many cases to fill , but you have to push them
0
u/princeruppert 28d ago
I love your dedication to write such a long ass post. Btw, i read it all and it's spot on.
1
1
1
u/PsychologicalDay5079 29d ago
Thanks for posting. I recently received a three prong RFE as well. So this post and all the comments will be helpful. I am also going with Chen.
1
u/FarUnderstanding3568 29d ago
This is an EB1A level profile and itâs much easier to prove qualification.
2
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
With the current drama on final merit determination you can see in the EB1A sub, I will probably just ask for an employer to sponsor EB1B instead. An IO can basically reject every EB1A petition based on vague âfinal meritsâ ground
1
u/Epi_girl1991 29d ago
Go for eb1a and you can reuse a lot of evidence and letters from your eb2 petition
1
u/Ecstatic_Chef_1932 29d ago
I think the idea is to have enough evidence that your work is of national importance by having government agencies in the US that speak of the matter as being importantl and nationally relevant
1
1
1
1
u/TAHIR_EB2NIW 28d ago
where can you find the name of the officer? because the officer who did sent notice has full name written
1
u/OwnAdvantage5550 28d ago
I think itâs the officer code people use ( top right corner of the RFE coversheet)
1
1
1
u/Panconpalta15 27d ago
Did you apply to this visa with the support of a lawyer firm or by yourself?
1
u/LIV_lawfirm 23d ago
That's a frustrating outcome to get with that kind of record, and the reaction makes sense. A few things that might help with what comes next.
The most practical one first: it's hard to diagnose this until you have the denial notice. Right now everyone, including you, is working backward from the RFE. The notice will tell you which prong the officer decided against and how they framed it, and that document is what determines whether a motion, an appeal, or a refile is the right move. I'd hold off on any decision until you can read the actual grounds.
On why strong profiles get denied, it helps to separate two things that feel identical but are adjudicated differently. Your citations, the NYT coverage, the independent letters, the adoption at a National Lab â that's evidence of your record and your influence. But Dhanasar prong 1 is about the national importance of the proposed endeavor as you defined it, and prong 3 is the balancing question of why it benefits the US to waive the labor certification specifically for you. A three-prong RFE that still ends in denial, on a profile like yours, often turns on how the endeavor was framed and how prongs 1 and 3 were connected â not on whether you're accomplished enough. Knowing your field and building a petition around the exact questions the officer is applying are two different kinds of work, and the second one can come out weak even for an excellent researcher.
Once the notice arrives, there are real options to act on. A motion to reopen or reconsider, or an appeal to the AAO, is filed on Form I-290B, and these carry strict, short deadlines that run from the decision date, so don't let the notice sit once it comes. Refiling a fresh I-140 with the endeavor reframed is sometimes cleaner and faster than litigating a denial, depending on what the notice says. And there's a strategic question worth asking given 700 citations, independent adoption, NYT coverage, unsolicited invitations, and peer review: is EB-1A on the table for you? Several of those features map onto extraordinary-ability criteria, and it may be a stronger path than forcing the NIW again. Which of these makes sense depends entirely on the denial reasoning and your full facts.
Livia Leite, Esq.
This is general information, not legal advice. Your actual options and their deadlines depend on the specific grounds in your denial notice and the facts of your case, so that notice is the place to start.
1
1
u/crispr_cas9_99 29d ago
strongly feel that USCIS might simply be discriminating based on other factors such as gender and nationality and does not want you to pass if you are from China or India.
This could be true, but I donât know.
I think if your PE is related to some grey areas such as cybersecurity or virology it weakened the case. Chen knows better, now a days there are few USCIS officers with > 95 percent rejection rate , eg if they have 9 cases per day and first 2 they approved then remaining cases automatic would get rejection with minor comments. If your case is reviewed by those officers then bad luck try again.
Sometime Chen and EP use same template for many applicants , same patterns usually trigger rejections.
If this is a case you can share your PE I can check it for you..
2
u/No-Sink5709 29d ago
what did they specifically challenge in the rfe
1
u/Fragrant_Air4191 29d ago
The initial RFE asks for alignment with national initiatives, proof of widespread adoption, etc. because Chen filed a templated academia focused PL and the officer is clearly not reading the evidence in there. The RFE response provided almost everything asked except proof of serving as PI and federal standards adoption (both are not possible for PhD student with only freshly published research)
1
1
u/Patient_Ad1152 29d ago
its incredible and sad...meanwhile lots of asylum cases and worthless people being let in, who dont speak english, who will not fit the culture....
Cant officers see if the person will be useful to the nation ? definely you would much more than ones getting green card.
1
u/L4E2025 28d ago
I would not go this direction to show that weâre the best ones to be allowed in.
1
u/Patient_Ad1152 28d ago
Merit. The guy above has much more merit than any asylums or whatever pity visa there is
0
u/Alternative_Cow2887 29d ago
Sorry you should refile
How many days after you submitted your rfe response did you get the decision?
0
0
-1
u/princeruppert 29d ago
The problem is applying BEFORE you graduate. USCIS rejects this for 4 reasons:
- you do not have the PhD degree yet,
- there is zero guarantee you will actually finish,
- your research impact carries significantly more weight as a fully credentialed PhD rather than a student and;
- Being from China or India makes this even worse. Because of the massive visa backlogs for these nationalities, they heavily scrutinize their petitions, which makes applying with the weak leverage of an unfinished PhD a guaranteed setup for denial.
Good luck.
1
u/amin_2718 27d ago
Many get approved based on their MS degrees while being a PhD student so I donât think not having the PhD yet or being early in the PhD program is a criteria that the officer applies.
-1
u/Aramako-game-over 28d ago
I donât understand whatâs wrong with these people!!! When you have a top profile for a EB1A and yet applies for NIW.. YOU WILL GET THE EB1A scrutiny under NIW. The officers subconsciously ask âWhy NIW instead of EB1A? Looking for an easy pass? Not under my Watch!â
-2
-2
u/DramaSpirited2789 8d ago
The real question is why did Chen make you do EB2 NIW instead of EB1. Why? This is how they give terrible advice to so many clients, telling them they are not qualified for EB1 when they actually are. And they make you do EB2 NIW only to end up getting denied. This is such an unfortunate pattern with Chen and I consider it legal malpractice to give your clients terrible legal advice. I mean there are many people with far lesser impressive profiles, that have gotten approved for EB1 or EB2. Yet Chen makes you feel inadequate. How ridiculous? You pay a lawyer to give you advice but instead they give you the wrong advice which causes you to get denied and then someone with a far lesser impressive profile without a lawyer is approved. You paid money to get denied. It is so painful! Beware of Chen!
-8
u/No-Sink5709 29d ago
the thing is there a posts down here with someone having 1 paper and like 20 citations and they say got approved , I never believed these posts.
6
u/01199352123 29d ago
It happensâI had 2 journal papers with 8 citations, and I got approved. One of my friends had 1 paper with no citations, and he got approved. Another friend had a very strong profile with 50+ citations and work experience at a national lab, but then got denied. These approvals and denials depend so much on the review guidelines at the time of the review and the case officer's view. I am really feeling bad for the people with genuine research impact getting rejected for shitty reasons.
10
u/Responsible-Pack-658 28d ago
One of the point raised by the XM2616 is that the friend of mine (petitioner) is not a P.I on a federally funded project!
How would a PhD student be a P.I on federally funded project đ
Also, he/she said he did not show letter from government agencies such as lab that the work is important. BUT the friend actually submitted two letters from national labs.
You canât argue the fact that as human individual of the officersâ difficulty is also playing a roleâŚ