RFE Language by Criterion
When a Request for Evidence lands, the first question is which criterion it actually attacks — and what the officer’s wording commits them to. Each page below quotes the relevant paragraphs verbatim from a real, de-identified USCIS notice, alongside the evidence that same officer listed as sufficient.
Sourced from 6 real notices (11 criteria covered so far; 4 more criteria are awaiting a verbatim excerpt and are not published yet). Names, employers, exact dates, and figures have been removed or generalized. Nothing here is legal advice.
Before any individual criterion: how your exhibits are labelled
“Each item of evidence submitted in support of an EB-1 petition must be clearly labeled and directly correlated to the specific regulatory criterion it is intended to satisfy, as required by 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) ... A generic or undifferentiated exhibit list that merely identifies the type of document, such as ‘Letters of Recommendation,’ without providing context regarding its relevance to the regulatory criteria, does not meet the evidentiary requirements for a successful petition.”
This appears before the criterion-by-criterion discussion in the notice, and it is a requirement about the index rather than about the evidence. An exhibit list grouped by document type instead of by criterion can weaken every criterion at once — the officer has to guess which exhibit was meant to prove what, and anything they do not connect is simply not credited.
EB-1A / O-1A — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)
When an RFE Challenges the Awards Criterion
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(i)Approved after RFEUSCIS most often rejects awards evidence for one reason: the award went to your employer, not to you. Two independent notices in our sample say exactly that — plus the officer's own four-element test and list of what would fix it.
When an RFE Challenges the Judging / Peer Review Criterion
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iv)Approved after RFETwo distinct objections appear under this criterion: the judging was not a formal designation, or it was not in your field of endeavor. They require completely different responses.
When an RFE Challenges Original Contributions of Major Significance
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v)Approved after RFEThe most frequently challenged EB-1A criterion, and the one most often answered wrongly. Officers routinely concede originality and reject significance — those are two separate findings.
When an RFE Challenges the Leading or Critical Role Criterion
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(viii)Outcome not known to usApproved after RFEThis criterion has two halves that fail independently — the organization's reputation and your role inside it. Three notices in our sample landed in three different places on it.
When an RFE Challenges the High Salary Criterion
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(ix)Approved after RFEDenied after RFEYour salary is not compared to the national average — it is compared to others doing your specific job, in your own country if that is where you work. Plus the reason bonus, equity, and even your company's valuation are routinely discounted.
When an RFE Challenges Published Material About You
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)Outcome not known to usTwo separate failures hide under this criterion: the articles are about your employer rather than you, and the outlets are never proven to be major media. Officers ask for circulation data and proof the coverage was not paid placement.
EB-1A threshold requirements — separate from the ten criteria
NIW — Matter of Dhanasar three-prong test
When an RFE Challenges Substantial Merit (Dhanasar Prong 1)
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)Denied after RFEThe single most common NIW defect: the petition described a job, not an endeavor. Verbatim from a notice where the case was ultimately denied.
When an RFE Challenges National Importance (Dhanasar Prong 1)
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)Denied after RFEApproved after RFEOfficers apply a specific test: does the impact extend past your own clients and your own locality? Excerpts from two real notices — one denied, one approved.
When an RFE Challenges Whether You Are Well Positioned (Dhanasar Prong 2)
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)Denied after RFEA partial finding here is common and easy to misread: the officer may accept that you are well positioned for one endeavor while rejecting the other one you described.
When an RFE Challenges the Balancing Test (Dhanasar Prong 3)
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)Denied after RFEProng 3 is the one petitions most often skip entirely. The officer's objection is specific and answerable — if you know it is a separate argument.
ImmiFlo reads your own RFE notice and tells you which criteria it challenges, quoting the officer's exact wording for each one.
Analyze your RFE for free →