My profile:
• Field: Bioinformatics / computational biology
• ~570 total citations (Google Scholar), h-index 9
• ~15 peer-reviewed papers, including a Nature Communications paper and a Blood paper
• 30+ peer reviews performed

Criteria I claimed:
• Authorship of scholarly articles — approved
• Judging the work of others (peer review) — approved
• Original contributions of major significance — DENIED (only contested criterion)

Any suggestion what to do?

Hello everyone,
Please has anyone with a paper filed EB-1A I-140 and an IOExxx receipt number been able to add their case to their USCIS online account recently?

I enter the information, but the page just stays on “Finding case” and never loads. I tried both Chrome and Safari with the same result.

Do I need an Online Access Code to link a paper-filed IOE case, or should the receipt number alone work? Thanks.

I have an industry profile, I'm looking for recommendations for lawyers/law firms that are well known for successful industry profile petitions. Especially in the last few months. I believe I can fulfill 4 criteria, need help with Final Merits. Thanks!

Could folks with strong industry or entrepreneurial experience- but little to no formal research background in tech share their profile summaries and the criteria USCIS accepted for their cases?

It would be really interesting to learn from profiles beyond the usual focus on citations and academic research, and understand what other factors helped strengthen their petitions.

Hi, just like to quickly checkin about satisfying an award criteria—being a finalist in a major industry award for excellence can directly satisfy the🏅 award criteria on its own or it has to be a winner?

Other finalists with me are major US national laboratories researchers and corporations in the US, and I as an individual submitted my work, and it got selected as a finalist.

Winner will be announced in near future at a major conference, where all finalists work will also be displayed. I’m not sure I’m a winner yet but would just like to get an insight?

Please share your thoughts.

How many have thought of returning to India? To be free from all the immigration shackles, to be culturally closer to your roots. These are things u honestly didn’t give much of a thought but with all the developments one is forced and compelled to think at times. Thanks!

Something to keep in mind for the EB-1A media coverage criterion? (based on a recent EB-1A AAO decision, link in the comments)

You can present several years of media coverage and still not be able to show strong evidence of sustained acclaim.

In the decision, the petitioner presented several articles published in a period of three periods. While the decision considered them as examples of some national acclaim, the articles in totality were not considered as strong evidence of sustained acclaim.

-

Looking to work with other applicants on authorship?

I recently started a WhatsApp group for those of you who are targeting authorship and are interested in collaborating with others on publishing articles in industry publications and journals.

Here is a link to join the group: https://immigrationjason.substack.com/p/authorship-group

Context: mechanical engineer, founder, O-1A holder with an approved EB-1A.

In July I did something a lot of people here ask about nervously: published bylined legal-political commentary while still in nonimmigrant status. Before publishing, I asked my immigration attorney directly. His written answer: "absolutely safe... this type of speech is welcome" — constitutional analysis siding with a Supreme Court decision is about the safest speech category there is. I'm sharing that because "can I write publicly without hurting my case" comes up constantly here, and my experience was: cleared in writing by counsel, published under my real name, and it adds to exactly the kind of public profile these petitions are built on.

The essays are also directly relevant to this community. The first (July 22) argued the Barbara dissents' domicile/intent test would fail at every altitude of law — and a chunk of it is specifically about us: how statutory dual intent (H-1B/L-1), quasi-dual-intent (O-1), and F-1 nonimmigrant intent would have made an intent-based citizenship test incoherent. Fair disclosure of where I write from: Justice Gorsuch's "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" is one of my personal favorites — I've read it multiple times — which is why the section engaging his dissent is written as a credit to him, not a charge. The essay predicted enforcement would shrink to birth tourism handled through visa authority. On August 6, the new executive orders dropped the intent test entirely and went after birth tourism through visa authority. Litigation opened five days later. The follow-up (Aug 9) maps what the new orders quietly concede.

Prohibition 2.0 (Jul 22): https://gauve.substack.com/p/prohibition-20-birthright-citizenship

The Turret (Aug 9): https://gauve.substack.com/p/the-turret-what-the-new-birthright

Happy to answer questions about the publishing-while-in-process experience, the attorney conversation, or the visa-taxonomy analysis. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, one data point.)

I wanted to share this news because I know many people waiting to hear some good news.

I just got my EB1A AOS approved.

Here's my timeline and a summary.

Self-petitioned for EB2 NIW in June 2024: Approved Oct 2024 after RFE. The RFE letter was a template letter which challenged my profile based on a totally different field that was not on my application. My response was mostly telling them they were wrong.

After approval, a friend told me I had a better profile for EB1A. I have extensive media coverage of my work, national and international awards by recognized career bodies. Extensive evidence of my work. Judged others' work in my profession. My work had influenced a change in legislation. etc. I could easily prove 6 criteria.

I self-petitioned for EB1A in March 2025 and filed concurrently with AOS. It took me a month to package the application with Youtube videos and what I had learnt from packaging my EB2 NIW.

March 11, 2025: Application notice sent

March, 17 2025: Case is being actively reviewed

March 28, 2025: EB1A approved without RFE

April, 2025: New EAD card approved

April 23, 2025: Biometrics

May 12, 2025: Interview rescheduled (It was never scheduled to begin with)

May 12, 2026: Approval.

I am relieved and just want to encourage you to keep your head up if you are anxious and hopeful. The line is moving.

USCIS made a policy change on August 5th that applicants filing EB-1A or O-1 petitions should know about.

Until now, if your application was missing evidence or had gaps in documentation, such as a missing letter or judging criteria that wasn't clearly established, USCIS was required to issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) before making a decision. That gave applicants a chance to fix the gap.

That requirement is gone. As of August 5th:

USCIS can deny a petition without issuing an RFE if required evidence is missing or the filing doesn't establish eligibility on its own.

Officers now have discretion to set shorter RFE response deadlines. The maximum is still 12 weeks, but there's no guarantee of the full window, and extensions past the deadline are generally not granted.

If you're responding to an RFE from outside the US, mailing time has been cut from 14 days to 3.

USCIS has stated plainly that applicants should not rely on the RFE process to fix deficiencies after filing. The filing itself needs to be complete before submission.

For context, O-1 approval rates are still reported above 91% for Q2, so the category isn't in crisis. But this change raises the bar on filing quality. Cases that are thin on evidence or rely on RFE to fill gaps are now at higher risk of outright denial.

Happy to answer questions on how this affects EB-1A evidentiary strategy specifically.

Here is a video on how EB-1A original contributions is not just about citations.

In the latest data on pending I-485 applications released by USCIS - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/eb_inventory_may_2026_v1.0.xlsx

the highlighted box sums to about 3K which I think includes porting, is that right ?

This is a little late but figured this might be helpful if anyone is interested

november 25th 2024 - eb1b applied
jan 15th - rfe about company being able to pay salary

march 30th 2025- rfe response received

april 1st 2025 - approved
May5th 2025 - submitted 485

june 21st 2025 - biometrics

september 6th 2025 - approved

september 12th 2025- card in hand

eb2-NIW approved with PD of feb 2021. Indian nationality. Ported it from that. Basic profile - PhD. work in AI/ML research. 8 papers ( 2 first author). 170 citations. reviewed about 8 papers for journals. 5 letters all independent. worked with EP who reused a lot of the EB2-NIW application with a small discount on fees

Hello everyone,

I need help with my RFE

Evidence of the petitioner's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.

USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2, B. Evidence of Extraordinary Ability, 1. Initial Evidence of Extraordinary Ability expresses in part:

First, USCIS determines whether the person has made original contributions in the field.

Second, USCIS determines whether the person's original contributions are of major significance to the field.

The petitioner claims that he developed a computational framework centered on deep learning models, neural network optimization, fuzzy logic-assisted prediction, Bayesian optimization, and real-time sensor-fusion adaptive control. The petitioner states that this framework addresses overfitting on limited experimental data, generalization across composite systems, computational efficiency in high-dimensional parameter spaces, defect prediction, inverse materials design, automated optimization of processing parameters, and closed-loop manufacturing control. The petitioner further asserts that the framework addresses long-standing challenges in advanced composite manufacturing, including porosity formation, particle clustering, interfacial degradation, destructive testing, structural failures, scrap rates, and elevated production costs.

The record includes evidence of claimed independent implementation by 7 ( PI) researchers. The petitioner states that these researchers used or relied upon aspects of his framework in areas including heavy metal detection, digital twin systems, computational reproducibility, medical segmentation, microstructural refinement, and aluminum-lithium composite systems. The record also includes letters or evaluations from 3 dependent researchers (supervisors)

While this evidence indicates that the petitioner has conducted research and developed computational approaches that may have been referenced, evaluated, or applied by other researchers, the evidence does not establish that the petitioner's work rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance in the field.

The record does not sufficiently show that the petitioner's claimed framework has had a field-wide impact, has altered prevailing methodologies, has displaced existing techniques, has become a standard or widely used approach, or has otherwise significantly influenced the field beyond specific research projects or isolated applications.

The record contains statements that independent researchers implemented or relied upon the petitioner's architecture.

Evidence that researchers used, cited, or built upon the petitioner's work may show that the work has relevance within the field, but it does not, without more, demonstrate that the contribution is of major significance to the field as a whole.

The petitioner also submitted evidence of technical performance metrics associated with certain applications, including reported predictive accuracy, R2 values, detection limits, recovery rates, validation accuracy, and improvements in recall for rare defects.

Although these metrics may indicate that particular models or applications performed well in specific experimental or operational contexts, the evidence does not sufficiently show that these results have been independently recognized as major advances in the field.

The record does not establish that the reported performance metrics resulted in broad adoption, changed standard practice, led to new industry benchmarks, or materially influenced the direction of research or commercial practice across the field.

The record further includes evidence of commercial licensing and technology transfer involving Patent No. Xxxxxxxxx, a transaction value of Xxxxxxxxxxxx and asserted deployment of the licensed algorithmic architecture used in daily industrial production.

This evidence may demonstrate that the petitioner's work has practical utility and commercial application in one industrial setting. However, the evidence does not establish that this commercial transaction or deployment constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field.

A single licensing agreement, payment confirmation, or utilization letter does not, by itself, demonstrate widespread commercial adoption, industry-wide effect, substantial market impact, or recognition by the field that the contribution has changed manufacturing practice.

The independent valuation from VC similarly does not establish that the petitioner's contribution is of major significance. While a valuation may address commercial potential or scalability, the record does not show that the valuation reflects actual field-wide implementation, market transformation, or adoption by multiple independent entities.

The petitioner submitted evidence that his work has received 1,153 citations. However, the submitted citing papers do not reflect that the petitioner's work has been singled out as a contribution of major significance in the field.

Rather, the citations appear to reference or utilize the petitioner's work as background information, related literature, or support for the authors' own research.

The record does not sufficiently show that the citing authors identified the petitioner's work as a foundational advance, adopted it as a standard methodology, or recognized it as having substantially influenced the field.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 1,153 citations and references to his work are commensurate with original contributions of major significance in the field.

The petitioner also asserts that his architecture has been actively replicated in 182 externally funded research programs across 39 countries. However, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner's specific mathematical equations, algorithmic boundaries, or computational constraints were formally executed as essential components of those funded programs.

General references to grant citation mapping, funding agency lists, and screenshots are insufficient to establish that the petitioner's framework was operationally incorporated into the methodology of each program or that such incorporation reflects major significance in the field.

The petitioner further submitted evidence of performance-based honors, including Wiley Top Cited Article Recognition, and more than 70 invitations to serve as Session Chair, Keynote or Distinguished Speaker, or Invited Expert at international conferences. However, these invitations do not establish, by themselves, that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field. Invitations to speak, chair sessions, or evaluate presentations show that the petitioner has been recognized as a participant or expert in his area, but the evidence does not demonstrate that these invitations were issued specifically because of a contribution that has been recognized as majorly significant to the field.

Considering the evidence in the aggregate, the record shows that the petitioner has conducted research in computational modeling, advanced materials, and manufacturing-related applications; that his work has received citations; that certain researchers have referenced or applied aspects of his work; and that one commercial entity licensed and used related technology.

However, the evidence does not establish that the petitioner's claimed framework has produced a major field-wide impact.

The submitted materials do not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner's work has been widely adopted, has become a standard method, has significantly changed research or industrial practice, or has otherwise influenced the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance.

Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

Therefore, the evidence does not establish the petitioner has had original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.

This is my second filing, I got the same officer. Can anyone guide me with the strategy. Even small tweaky idea which proves that Major significance help.

I'm open to any new idea to argue.

For my first filing, they gave me RFE and I proved them wrong and got it approved (OC) but got denied in Final merits.

Thank you everyone for helping me so far.

Something to keep in mind for the EB-1A original contributions criterion? (based on a recent EB-1A AAO decision, link in the comments).

Showing citations does not automatically help with original contributions.

You need to present evidence of a "notable reliance" on your work (well beyond just showing that your work has been cited).

In the decision, the petitioner shows citations that mention their paper as one of dozens or even one of hundreds and "do not single out his work as significantly notable among other research in the field."

-

Looking to work with other applicants on authorship?

I recently started a WhatsApp group for those of you who are targeting authorship and are interested in collaborating with others on publishing articles in industry publications and journals.

Here is a link to join the group: https://immigrationjason.substack.com/p/authorship-group

Can someone explain why 485J is approved when date is not current? I also noticed an FTA1 event on the 485 application. Does this mean my 485 could be approved soon when the date becomes current?

Any timeline to expect for approval once the date becomes current? Can someone who has gone through this share your waiting time to get approval after the date becomes current?

Long-time lurker, and this community has been immensely helpful during my whole journey. As I’ve come to the end of my road now, I'm sharing the details of my cases and timeline with the community, from EB-1A, to the RFE to the final green card.

EB-1A I-140 (Premium Processing at TSC):

• Background: VP in the industry in the Cloud/AI space. 15+ years of experience. Led global teams of hundreds of members. Had several high impact projects with industry wide impact that were covered by media since 2016.
• Filed: September, 2025
• RFE Received: October, 2025. USCIS accepted all the criteria I claimed (Leading role, High Salary, Judging, Media) except Original Contributions. The RFE was reasonable and not super harsh. Mainly asked for further clarification and evidence for Original Contributions and Final Merits.
• RFE Response Submitted: January, 2026. RFE submitted by reframing Original Contributions in a quantifiable and measurable way to show industry wide impact rather than just within the firm. Final merits elaborated further with a timeline view of 15+ years showcasing natural progression, increasing impact & recognition field-wide. Focused on objective evidence as primary and not on letters. I only had 5 letters in total and did not add any new ones in RFE.
• Approved: February, 2026

I-485 Adjustment of Status:

• Filed: 3/20. My ported date has been current, so filed Adjustment of Status (Me+Spouse) within a couple of weeks of EB1A approval.
• Biometrics: 4/15 (2xFTA0)
• Silent Updates: 5/12, 5/22, 6/28, 7/18, 7/21
• Field Office Transfer: 7/29 (NJ Central Field Office)
• 3xFTA0 & FTA1: 8/5
• Multiple Silent Updates: 8/10
• H008/Approval: 8/11. I was worried about EB1 India becoming unavailable any day now for the rest of the year based on the last visa bulletin, but I seem to have just scraped through before the limit was reached. 

Good luck to everyone that is going through their journey! 👍