RFE Misreading Pattern
USCIS Evaluated Evidence Under the Wrong Criterion
Evidence submitted to support one EB-1A/O-1A criterion (or NIW prong) gets evaluated by USCIS as if it were meant to support a different one — and found wanting by a standard it was never trying to meet.
What it typically looks like
"This letter does not establish the beneficiary's critical role, as it primarily discusses their published research" — applied to a letter that was submitted specifically as scholarly-article evidence, not critical-role evidence, and was never intended to independently satisfy the critical-role criterion.
Why it's a misreading
Long petitions often organize exhibits by document rather than strictly by criterion, and a single letter or article can genuinely speak to more than one criterion. When an RFE reviewer works quickly through a large exhibit set, it is easy to grade one piece of evidence against the wrong bucket — especially when the original filing's own exhibit index made the intended mapping less explicit than it could have been.
How to rebut it
Restate, explicitly, which criterion each piece of evidence was originally submitted to support (an exhibit-to-criterion map is the clearest way to do this), and note where USCIS's finding critiques the evidence against a standard it was never offered to meet. Then, separately, address whether the evidence does or does not independently support the criterion USCIS actually evaluated it under — don't just object to the mismatch and stop there.
ImmiFlo compares your RFE notice against your original filing and flags misreadings like this one automatically — you confirm or reject each finding before it's used in your response letter.
Analyze your RFE for free →