I’ve heard a theory: if you include weak criteria in a case, it harms you and provokes an RFE. Is that a proven fact or just someone’s hypothesis? I want to understand whether it’s worth including criteria with a not-very-strong evidentiary basis at all, or whether it’s better to build the case only on the most convincing ones.
That’s exactly how it was for me the first time — I shoehorned five criteria just to hit the numbers, and in the end the officer wrote that the criteria were met but didn’t see the significance. The second time, with a lawyer, we left only four, but really strong ones, and it went through without questions. Better three rock‑solid ones than six stretched — learned that the hard way.
6 Likes