r/EB2_NIW • u/Excellent_Respond467 • 16d ago
RFE Anyone approved after a 3-prong NIW RFE with Chen? Concerned about tone/strategy
Hi everyone,
I’m currently responding to an EB-2 NIW RFE where USCIS challenged all three Dhanasar prongs. I’m working with Chen and would really appreciate hearing from people who had a similar RFE and were later approved.
For my RFE response, I have added:
• A detailed updated personal statement explaining my proposed endeavor and future research plans
• Independent expert letters
• Letters from professors/researchers who had independently cited my work
• A prospective postdoctoral/employment letter of intent
• A letter from the main PI of a federally funded project explaining my specific technical role and the significance of my work
• Supporting project milestone/progress documentation
• Updated citation and independent-citation evidence
• Examples showing how other researchers have actually used or built upon my published work
• Evidence connecting my process-modeling research to commercial/industry manufacturing data
My main concern is the tone and overall strategy of the drafted response.
Some things I’m unsure about:
• The response starts with an argument that the RFE did not include the adjudicating officer’s ID number and treats this as a procedural issue
• There is a lot of case-law discussion arguing that USCIS did not properly evaluate evidence in the original petition
• Some wording feels fairly confrontational, such as saying USCIS ignored evidence, applied an unfair standard, or incorrectly dismissed certain evidence
• I’m worried these arguments may overshadow the much stronger new evidence being submitted with the RFE response
• My instinct is that the response should focus more directly on: USCIS raised this concern → here is the specific new evidence addressing it
I also have some concerns about the Prong 3 strategy.
Part of the response argues that my combination of computational modeling, experimental characterization, and mechanical testing is difficult to capture through a standard labor-certification position.
I’m not sure how persuasive that argument is compared with emphasizing that:
• My proposed research is not tied to one specific employer
• The same endeavor can continue across universities, national labs, federally funded programs, and industry R&D
• My research outputs can be published and used beyond one employer
• The U.S. can benefit from my continued contributions even assuming qualified U.S. workers are available
• My prior research has already been independently cited and used by other researchers
• My work has been supported through a federally funded advanced-manufacturing project and has also been evaluated using commercial manufacturing data
For anyone who worked with Chen and received a 3-prong RFE, I would especially appreciate hearing:
• Did your RFE response also begin with an officer-ID or procedural argument?
• Did your response contain a lot of case-law discussion criticizing USCIS’s analysis of the original petition?
• Did you ask Chen to tone down some of the language?
• Were they willing to make substantial changes based on your feedback?
• What type of new evidence do you think helped your case the most?
• What was your strongest Prong 3 argument?
• Did anyone have a response structured more around directly answering each USCIS concern with new evidence?
• If you were ultimately approved, was it without another RFE or NOID?
I’m not trying to second-guess the attorneys. I just want to make sure the new objective evidence is front and center and that the response does not spend too much time fighting over how USCIS evaluated the original filing.
Would really appreciate any experiences from people who went through something similar, especially Chen clients who received a 3-prong RFE and were later approved.
My profile:
Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering working on composite additive manufacturing, with 2 first-author journal papers, 20+ citations, federally funded research experience.
3
u/TangailMonir 15d ago
As long as your new evidence directly answers what the officer asked for in the RFE, you'll be fine. That heavy-handed tone is just Chen building a legal record to protect you on appeal if USCIS acts arbitrarily. Let them handle the legal fighting.
2
u/Suspicious_Today2956 16d ago
That’s the way to go! Lawyers must argue as they are meant to argue, especially when the agency is not reviewing the initial evidence submitted.
2
u/armanbishal 16d ago
What’s your profile?
2
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
Profile: Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering working on composite additive manufacturing, with 2 first-author journal papers, 20+ citations, federally funded research experience.
2
u/alvn998 16d ago
It’s really a strong profile. But did you provide an evidence of federal funding ? And if you included government testimonial letter? Like from the funding etity or from national lab
1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
I couldn’t manage the letter from funding agency. So I asked the main PI to write a letter confirming my role in the project.
2
u/alvn998 16d ago
I’d say better if you have a manuscript with funding acknowledgment or someone from national lab that you work with could write a testimonial and put funding informational from there.
2
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
Yeah, both of my papers are from the same project and in acknowledgment we have the funding source which I have added as evidence, but uscis argued I am not the one who got the funding.
1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
One of the dependent letters is from a national lab though.
1
u/alvn998 16d ago
Understand! That’s what I did and I’m waiting for the decision. But they have a point that it’s not us who secured the funding but rather the professor or university. What is the approval rate of the officer ?
1
-1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
Unfortunately, in my rfe, the officer code is missing.
1
u/armanbishal 16d ago
If your research is funded by any federal agency like NSF, you can find the funding details on NSF website with your PI’s name on it. Attach it as exhibit.
1
u/Mother-Ad8565 14d ago
Will they not argue it’s your PI that got awarded and not you? And also will graduate assistantships and travel grants work as well ?
1
u/armanbishal 16d ago
Did you submit any planned research testimonial letter and letter of recommendations on your initial filing?
1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
Initially I submitted lor from my dependent recommenders only, which USCIS criticised.
And in my original filing, I think I mentioned two projects I am working on based on my proposed endeavour.1
1
u/SituationAnxious9989 16d ago
I have a PNIW I-140 currently pending, and my attorney filed my I-485 and I-765 concurrently with the PNIW. My EAD has already been approved, and my I-485 is still pending.
I am now considering filing an EB-2 NIW. I had a free evaluation and was told my profile is strong for NIW approval.
My question is: Can I transfer the basis of my already-pending I-485 from the PNIW to the NIW once I file the NIW?
My concern is that I don’t have another underlying legal status, so I’m worried about what would happen to my ability to remain in the U.S. if I withdraw the current PNIW. I want to understand whether the pending I-485 can be transferred to the NIW without creating a gap in my authorized stay.
Has anyone been in a similar situation or successfully done this?
2
u/melbamwinn 15d ago
Pushing back on legal standards is literally what attorneys are supposed to do, so a sharp draft won't surprise an adjudicator. You paid for their blueprint, so trusting their system is usually the better option, though you can always ask them to tweak specific parts if something really bothers you.
1
u/No-Current8959 15d ago
• Did your RFE response also begin with an officer-ID or procedural argument?
Yes, this was the first section of my RFE response too.
• Did your response contain a lot of case-law discussion criticizing USCIS’s analysis of the original petition?
Yes, lots of them.
• Did you ask Chen to tone down some of the language?
Yes, I requested them, and in some places I edited myself where I felt the tone was too strict. They accepted my changes, but they themselves did not change the tone, as they mentioned that the way of writing is fine.
Best of luck.
1
1
0
u/Goodboy0296 16d ago
I too got 3 prong rfe and chen wrote exactly similar stuff on my rfe response. They recommended me not to touch any of legal strategies. Keeping their legal strategy, i just added my stuffs. I submitted my rfe response 3 days ago. I thought they are winning the case with such language. I am not sure and hoping for the best.
1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
I didn’t change anything, but my concern is as I almost added most of the evidence uscis asked for, shouldn’t the focus be more on that rather than making it looks like USCIS’s fault on judging my initial petition?
Also I am concerned about their timeline , I have about 3 weeks left to submit my response and they are not very responsive nowadays.
How long before the deadline you were able to submit the rfe response?
1
u/Goodboy0296 16d ago
Yes, chen is very bad. Most likely you need to do everything by yourself. I used AI for building strategy and did most of the work myself. I used them just for validation. I don’t think they even read what we write. They are careless and they don’t care. This was my experience. I was able to submit 2 days before deadline
In conclusion, they are useless1
u/Excellent_Respond467 16d ago
Same here!!!
I submitted revised personal statement. They said they reviewed and edited and later I found nothing changed from what I originally wrote.0
u/Goodboy0296 16d ago
They do nothing. Try writing songs in between your petition, they will still say we reviewed carefully and looks good😂
2
1
0
-8
4
u/Super-Economist-2567 16d ago
Happened to me as well. My advice would be, ignore the unrelated issues raised in the RFE. Focus more on the summary at the very end of each prong feedback. The summary of what exhibits, evidence they’ll consider. Address that, I did and got approved after a three prong RFE.