Hello everyone!
I can finally share my story with a happy ending.
Recently I received approval for EB-1A on the 7th day with no RFE. This was my second filing, and the road to this decision turned out to be much longer and more emotional than it might appear from the outside.
A bit about me.
I work in IT as a QA / SDET.
I first started thinking about EB-1A around February 2025. At that time I knew almost nothing about this category. Moreover, it seemed to me like something unattainable and meant for people of a completely different level. But since I had no other fast paths to a green card, I decided at least to figure out what this category actually is.
It all started with a consultation with one attorney. After the conversation things moved pretty quickly, and I soon signed a contract. Unfortunately, after a few months of work I realized that we had different views on my case and the strategy for developing it. At some point it became clear that it would be difficult to continue working together, and we decided to end the collaboration.
After that I thought for a while about building the case on my own. I read a lot, studied the requirements, and examined the criteria and other people’s stories.
But quite quickly I realized I lacked an outside perspective. I needed someone who truly understands EB-1A deeply, constantly analyzes new decisions, RFEs and denials, and knows how to properly present an individual’s strengths.
I thought I was an ordinary IT specialist and that there was nothing special in my career. Many things that later became part of the case I perceived simply as my day-to-day work.
That’s how I met Egor @e_akimov and his team; 11 months passed from our first meeting to the approval.
We filed the first petition at the end of 2025.
Some time later we received an RFE from Texas, with 0 counts accepted (officer 1884). We prepared a response, but then we received a denial.
I won’t hide it — that was a hard moment. Anyone who has gone through a denial probably knows what I mean. At one point I even seriously considered giving up on EB-1A and switching to EB-2 NIW.
But after discussing the situation with Egor we decided not to give up and to try again.
And here comes probably the most unexpected part of my story.
In fact, we didn’t build a completely new case.
Moreover, I believe the first case was strong.
After the RFE and the subsequent denial I had the feeling that the officer either reviewed the materials very superficially or didn’t fully understand the specifics of the case. The RFE itself contained points that raised many questions. For example, it requested documents that were already included in the petition.
So after the denial we didn’t take it as proof that the case was weak or that my achievements were insufficient for EB-1A.
Instead we calmly analyzed the situation and decided to refile.
Preparing the second filing took only about two months (of which 2–3 weeks I basically spent going over scenarios in my head without taking concrete action).
During that time we practically didn’t rewrite or change the structure of the case.
The main strengthening happened in the judging and scholarly activities sections.
By the time of the second filing I had additional peer reviews for international academic journals. I was also invited to the editorial board of an academic publication where I participated in reviewing materials.
In addition, we decided to show citations of my publications (27 citations) that appeared during the two months between filings. We didn’t make a special emphasis on this, but we considered it important to show additional confirmation of professional recognition.
In essence, that was the main enhancement of the case.
Everything else remained almost unchanged.
Regarding the criteria themselves, my case covered the following areas.
Leading/Critical Role.
Here we showed my current work at an American company and explained in detail why my role is critically important to the business. A lot of attention was given to the impact of my work on the company’s products, business processes, and final outcomes.
We also demonstrated my role at a previous company, where my work ensured the reliability of key business processes that directly affected financial metrics and business stability.
Original Contributions.
This was probably one of the most difficult criteria. To prepare it we had to collect a large number of documents and show the whole path from idea to implementation of solutions in real commercial products.
Judging.
This criterion included my activities as an expert, judge, and reviewer in the professional community. Materials submitted included participation in evaluations for IEEE Senior Member, membership in the jury of Armenia Digital Awards (ECDMA), AI TEX Summit and Raptors Hackathon. Examples of expert audits of technical solutions for large international IT companies were also presented.
In the second filing this criterion was further strengthened by peer-reviewing scientific articles for international journals and participation on the editorial board of an academic publication.
Scholarly Articles.
At the time of filing I had about eight academic publications. Most were published in Ukrainian journals of category B. There were also international publications and works indexed in Scopus.
Published Material.
This section used media coverage about me and my work in Ukrainian outlets. Among the most well-known were Focus and Obozrevatel, as well as several other media with fairly wide audiences.
Memberships.
This criterion included IEEE Senior Member and Raptors, but we didn’t put much hope on this one and everyone understands why. It’s the weakest for most people and is rarely credited.
Final merits
This section alone ran to 36 pages, and the main task was not to dump everything together and repeat what had already been submitted, but to show that it’s all about the same thing. We didn’t just list what I had done — we showed how one thing follows from another: there’s a number — it’s confirmed by an expert; there’s a result — it has a real effect on the business; there’s feedback — it’s based on a concrete outcome. We separately showed that I’m at the top of the field, and separately that the recognition is not one-off but spans years and continues now. And at the end we tied it all together again.
After submitting the second petition, something happened that I still find hard to believe.
Approval arrived on the seventh day with no RFE.
After everything I’d been through I read the notice several times because I simply couldn’t believe it had finally happened.
Today, looking back, I realize one important thing.
Very often we underestimate our achievements. It seems to us that there’s nothing special in our work, that there are people much stronger and more deserving than we are. I thought the same.
But if you look at your experience correctly, structure it intelligently, and show the real impact of your work, many things become possible.
So I want to tell everyone who is preparing a case, received an RFE, or faced a denial: don’t be quick to put a full stop on your story.
A denial is not always the end of the road.
Sometimes it’s just one stage before the long-awaited approval.
Thanks to Egor’s entire team who put so much effort and knowledge into my petition. Huge thanks to Lena, with whom I spent so much time on calls discussing what and how to collect correctly.
Probably the main difference for me was the individualized approach. There was no feeling that my case was being forced into some ready-made template. All processes were very clear and structured, and the support was not only professional but also human. For such a long and emotionally difficult process this really matters.
Wishing everyone good luck and speedy approvals!