From RFE to Approval: A Data-Backed Case Study on How Evidence Re-Positioning Changed the Outcome

2. Case Background: Initial Filing Snapshot

Mohan’s EB1A petition claimed multiple criteria, including original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly work, and a leading or critical role. His initial evidence strategy followed a familiar pattern. Achievements were documented exhaustively. Recommendation letters emphasized expertise and seniority. Exhibits were organized neatly, criterion by criterion.

The profile itself was strong. However, the petition leaned heavily on credentials and volume rather than clearly establishing industry-wide impact. While the filing was technically compliant, it failed to connect accomplishments to broader influence within the field. This disconnect between achievement and impact is a common blind spot. In Mohan’s case, it became the primary trigger for a USCIS Request for Evidence, despite the strength of his background.

Recent USCIS adjudication data shows that EB-1A approval rates in 2025 remain relatively steady at around 66–67%, despite increased scrutiny. However, USCIS does not publicly release category-specific RFE statistics for EB-1A petitions.

While many practitioners and independent analyses observe a notable rise in RFEs in EB-1A cases, estimates placing RFE rates in the 40–50% range are based on case-level observations and third-party analysis, not on officially published USCIS data.This means that many successful profiles may likely get an RFE if the adjudicating officer feels that certain areas need more clarification through better evidence.

3. The RFE: What USCIS Questioned

The RFE did not dispute Mohan’s qualifications outright. Instead, it raised themes that frequently appear in EB1A RFEs and reflect common reasons for USCIS RFE issuance. First, USCIS questioned whether Mohan’s contributions truly rose to the level of “major significance” beyond his immediate organization. The officer sought concrete evidence demonstrating industry-wide impact, not just internal value.

Second, the leading or critical role claim lacked outcome-driven evidence. While Mohan’s role was senior, USCIS remained unconvinced about the tangible effect of that role on the organization and, more importantly, on the field at large. At its core, the RFE exposed a misalignment. The petition described what Mohan did but not why his work was original, unique, or influential beyond his employer.

This reflects how USCIS approaches adjudication. Officers implicitly ask:

• What measurable impact did the claimed role create?
• What makes the contributions original and distinctive?
• Is there credible proof that the industry adopted, relied on, or was influenced by this work?

Without clear answers, even strong profiles invite skepticism.

4. Strategy Shift: Evidence Re-Positioning, Not Expansion

Mohan’s response focused on evidence repositioning USCIS, not evidence expansion. This shift proved decisive.Before the RFE, accomplishments were presented largely as a list. After the RFE, every exhibit was reframed around impact. The goal was no longer to show that Mohan was impressive but to demonstrate that his work changed outcomes.

First, existing materials were mapped directly to measurable indicators such as adoption rates, commercial implementation, citations, and policy influence. Second, independent validation replaced self-referential explanations. Third-party data, external recognition, and objective benchmarks took priority over internal praise.

National and industry-wide relevance became central. Instead of focusing on Mohan’s responsibilities within an organization, the response showed how his leading role and innovations influenced practices beyond it.

This USCIS Request for Evidence strategy transformed the narrative from capability to consequence. It mirrors many strong RFE response examples seen in successful cases handled by EB1A Experts, where precise repositioning clarifies significance without overstating claims.

5. Outcome & Insights

Mohan’s petition was approved, making this an EB1A petition approved after RFE and a clear example of USCIS RFE response success.

Three lessons stand out:

• First, an RFE is not a rejection. It is a diagnostic signal.
• Second, effective responses address why USCIS remains unconvinced, not just what they asked for.
• Third, evidence quality is defined by relevance, framing, and independently verifiable impact.

This EB1A RFE approval case study reinforces that final merits determination hinges on how clearly the impact is established, not on how much evidence is submitted.

6. Conclusion

An RFE does not invalidate your achievements. It challenges how they were presented. USCIS looks for proof of influence, adoption, and relevance, not just credentials. The above-mentioned case of approval after RFE demonstrates that the right strategy can change the outcome without adding new evidence.

7. FAQs

1. What is an RFE from USCIS?

A Request for Evidence (RFE) is a formal notice from USCIS asking for clarification or stronger proof before deciding your petition. In many EB1A RFE case study examples, the issue isn’t missing credentials but unclear positioning. Understanding the notice correctly is the first step toward EB1A RFE to approval.

2. Can an EB1A petition be approved after receiving an RFE?

Yes, absolutely. Many applicants receive EB1A approval after RFE outcomes when their response addresses the officer's concerns strategically. An EB1A RFE to approval path depends on how well the response reframes impact, not on adding volume. Each EB1A RFE case study confirms that approvals are common with proper handling.

3. Why do EB1A petitions commonly receive RFEs?

EB1A adjudication is subjective, and RFEs occur when evidence does not clearly show sustained national or international impact. Many EB1A RFE case study reviews reveal that achievements exist, but the USCIS RFE response strategy failed to connect them to field-wide significance, leading to avoidable RFEs.

4. What does “evidence repositioning” mean in an RFE response?

Evidence repositioning focuses on reframing existing materials to emphasize influence, originality, and independent recognition. A strong USCIS RFE response strategy explains why the evidence matters. Most EB1A approved after RFE cases rely on this approach rather than submitting new achievements, accelerating EB1A RFE to approval.

5. How long does USCIS take to decide after an RFE response?

After submission, USCIS typically decides within a few weeks to a few months, depending on workload and complexity. Clear responses that follow a proven USCIS RFE response strategy often move faster. Knowing how to respond to EB1A RFE correctly increases approval odds and supports EB1A RFE to approval success.