I got an RFE; they’re asking me to redo about four criteria. Is it normal to be asked for that many at once? Does that mean I need to gather the whole case again?
4 criteria in an RFE — annoying, but not fatal. The solution is pretty straightforward: rewrite the entire case from scratch, attach evidence for each disputed criterion, and try to get 10 new letters of recommendation or rewrite the old ones — don’t submit the same ones. There are stories where, after exactly such an RFE, they were ultimately approved.
6 Likes
Do we have to hunt for new recommendation letters, or can we just ask the same people for different letters? Putting together ten from scratch sounds totally impossible.
6 Likes
It’s normal. You can find stories on this site where, out of seven claimed criteria, they scored 0 after an RFE. I think you should definitely stand up for the strong criteria, and at the same time include as many new documents as possible — especially if the RFE was on point and the officer requested something specific.
6 Likes
The new letters are easier, of course, but I was told you can have the same recommenders rewrite them — you don’t have to find ten new people from scratch, so for now I’m collecting them for a second round.
6 Likes
I meant specifically documents (objective evidence), if those were requested by the officer, not letters.
Regarding recommendation letters, I can’t advise what to do — you need to look at the text of the RFE. If the officer asks, for example, to confirm the scholarly nature of the scientific articles, then a recommendation letter from an authoritative scholar in your field would indeed be helpful (preferably someone unfamiliar with you and/or someone who has cited the claimed works). If, for instance, such a person has already written a letter supporting the contribution, then you could indeed ask them to sign a new letter in support of the “scientific articles” criterion.
6 Likes
I’m doing a second round of requests, but many people agreed to rewrite the letters, so it’s not as bad as it seemed at first.
6 Likes
Our lawyer explained to us that some RFEs are formulaic — run through automated analysis — and it’s pointless to look for the reasoning of a particular officer there. The advice was to explicitly point out everything that’s already been submitted and to rethink the petition’s overall logic. Sometimes the problem isn’t that there’s too little evidence, but how it’s organized.
6 Likes
The Critical Role criterion in the USCIS manual is described pretty clearly — it’s clear what exactly is required. But the contribution part is trickier; people approach it in all kinds of ways. Letters from colleagues and experts often end up being almost the primary source of evidence — but what matters isn’t their number, it’s how specifically they explain the significance of the work for the field.
6 Likes
It depends on exactly what the officer wrote — that’s the main thing. If that criterion wasn’t submitted at all, then yes, add it. If it was submitted but the officer doubts it, you need to spell it out again and show that everything’s okay; don’t add new evidence, but rework the logic of what’s already there. When I got an RFE, the request’s wording made pretty clear what the doubt was — and from that I built the whole response strategy.
6 Likes
If, in an RFE, the officer tears apart each criterion one by one — that’s a bad sign. Sometimes an RFE like that is sent formally because they aren’t allowed to deny outright — the response will very likely still end in a denial. In that case it’s often wiser to withdraw and refile with a revised case — there’s a chance you’ll get a different officer. If, however, the officer asks specific questions and doubts particular points, that’s a different matter; it’s worth responding.
6 Likes
There was a hefty RFE — 13 pages. The officer asked about specific dates and specific people, and even managed to get the recommenders’ surnames wrong right in the text of the request. The attorney deliberately held back a couple of strong cards — saved them specifically for a possible RFE. The response packet ended up being larger than the entire original case.
6 Likes
I got an RFE on the contributions criterion — the officer asked for concrete evidence of impact on the field, not just letters about expertise but actual citations with numbers. When I resubmitted, I focused exactly on that: how many times each paper was cited, in which journals, and by whom. The second time there was no RFE.
6 Likes