RFE Language by Criterion — EB-1A / O-1A
When an RFE Challenges the Awards Criterion
USCIS 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.
The governing text
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(i)
Read the primary source →The officer's own element test
Quoted verbatim. This is the most directly usable paragraph in any RFE — the officer states the criterion as a numbered checklist and says every item has to be satisfied. Audit your exhibits against it one line at a time.
The plain language of this criterion requires evidence:
- of the Petitioner's receipt of a prize or award
- that the prize or award is in the Petitioner's field
- that the prize or award is recognized nationally or internationally
- that the award or prize is for excellence in the field of endeavor
The Petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion.
What the officer actually wrote
Quoted verbatim from a real USCIS notice. Names, employers, exact dates, and figures have been removed or generalized; bracketed text marks a redaction.
“It must be noted that several awards ([award names redacted], and project grants) were issued to your employer ([employer redacted]) and make no reference to you.”
This case was approved after the RFE response。
A second, completely independent case with the same defect — different applicant, different industry, different service center, same sentence structure. When a failure mode recurs this cleanly across unrelated filings, treat it as a pre-filing checklist item rather than an RFE risk: before submitting, confirm every award exhibit names the beneficiary.
“The record shows that your place of employment won awards. However, the focus of the evidence should be on your receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to your employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. Thus, since you were not the direct recipient of the prize or award, the evidence does not meet the plain language of this criterion.”
This case was approved after the RFE response。
This is not a judgment about how prestigious the award is — it is a threshold objection about who is named on it. Arguing that the award is well known does not answer it. Either produce documentation naming you personally, or move the evidence to a criterion where an organizational award is relevant (for example, critical role).
What that officer said would help
USCIS's own list from the same notice, quoted verbatim. This is the closest thing to a specification for the response you will get.
- the criteria used to give the prizes or awards
- national or international media coverage of prizes or awards
- the reputation of the organization granting the prizes or awards
- who are considered for the prizes or awards, including the geographic scope from which candidates may apply
- how many prizes or awards are awarded each year
- previous winners who enjoy national or international acclaim
- how prizes or awards are given for excellence in your field
- a copy of each prize or award certificate
- a clear photograph of each prize or award
- a public announcement regarding the awarding of the prizes or awards issued by the granting organization
Authorities the officer cited
Reproduced as they appear in the notice. These are the officer’s citations, not ImmiFlo’s — we have not independently verified each quotation against the reporter. Our own verified library is on the legal citations page.
- Hristov v. Roark, 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011)
ImmiFlo compares your RFE notice against your original filing and tells you, criterion by criterion, exactly what the officer challenged and which of your existing exhibits already answer it.
Analyze your RFE for free →