EB-1A Approved: Answering an RFE That Challenged Every Criterion in an EB-1A Petition

On September 14, 2026, USCIS approved an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition for a research scientist in the environmental sciences, after a Request for Evidence that challenged four of the criteria the petition relied on.

An RFE on an EB-1A case is common, and it is not a denial. It is the officer telling you exactly what is missing. This case shows how a precise, well-documented response can turn four “not met” findings into an approval.

The client

A scientist whose research uses advanced data and modeling methods to answer environmental questions with real policy consequences. His record included peer-reviewed articles in some of the most cited journals in science, competitive international fellowships and research awards, invited peer review for leading journals, and leadership roles in a major U.S.-funded scientific program.

On paper, a strong extraordinary ability case. But the EB-1A is not decided on paper alone; it is decided on how clearly the evidence meets the plain language of each criterion.

What the RFE said

USCIS questioned four of the six criteria in the petition. For two, the officer explained the concern. For the other two, the RFE simply stated that the plain language was not met. The officer also asked us to explain how the record shows that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

How we answered each criterion

Beyond the four criteria

• We didn’t concede anything. The response stated that the original record already met at least three criteria, and supplied the new evidence to remove any doubt.
• We re-presented two more criteria. Although not questioned, his recognized awards and his membership in selective associations were set out again, so the record was unambiguous.
• We wrote the final merits analysis for the officer. A year-by-year table showed sustained and growing acclaim, followed by eight independent reasons he stands at the top of his field, with every point tied to an exhibit.
• We applied the correct legal standard. The response framed every argument under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and the two-step Kazarian analysis, so the officer could see where each piece of evidence belonged.

The timeline

1. May 11, 2026EB-1A petition filedForm I-140 with premium processing and 76 exhibits, claiming six of the ten criteria.
2. May 29, 2026Request for EvidenceUSCIS questions four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles and leading or critical role, and asks how the record shows he is at the very top of the field.
3. August 21, 2026RFE response filedA full, criterion-by-criterion response with new independent evidence, filed three days before the deadline.
4. September 14, 2026ApprovedUSCIS approves the EB-1A petition, 24 days after receiving the response.

What made the difference

• Answering the officer’s exact words. Each section opened with the concern USCIS raised, then answered it point by point.
• Independent evidence, not self-description. Every new document came from journals, editors, federal data, recognized classification bodies or unaffiliated experts.
• Showing impact, not just activity. Publications and roles were tied to measurable outcomes: adopted methods, benchmarked citations and real-world use.
• Filing on time, completely. All evidence went in at once, before the deadline, as the regulations require.

Received an RFE on your EB-1A?

An RFE is a second chance to make your case, but it is a one-time opportunity: whatever you submit is the record USCIS will decide on. If you have received an RFE, or want to file in a way that avoids one, a careful, criterion-by-criterion strategy makes the difference.

Congratulations to our client on his approval.