Fighting for Approval: How We Won an NIW Case After a Tough RFE

Receiving a Request for Evidence (RFE) on an NIW petition can feel like a major setback, but with the right strategy, it can become an opportunity to strengthen the case and respond to USCIS’s concerns directly. That is exactly what we did in a recent case that led to approval, even under the stricter standards introduced in early 2025.

​

A Strong Petition, Then a Policy Shift

​

We submitted this petition prior to the USCIS policy update issued on January 15, 2025. When the RFE arrived, it became immediately clear that the adjudicator was applying the new, more rigorous standards. The language of the RFE reflected heightened expectations, particularly with respect to how national importance and the petitioner’s ability to advance the proposed endeavor were framed and supported.

​

This was the first RFE we received that reflected the updated policy, and it required a carefully calibrated response.

​

Strategic, Detailed, and Substantiated

​

We began by studying the policy update to understand how the framework had evolved. Then, we reshaped the response to align with the newly articulated standards, building upon the original petition that had been carefully prepared under the prior guidance.

​

Our approach was highly focused:

​

• We restructured the description of the proposed endeavor using language that aligned clearly with the updated adjudication framework.
• We addressed the national importance prong with deeper specificity, expanding on how the client’s work contributes to broader systemic outcomes in a way that aligns with the more focused standards now being applied.
• We strengthened the petitioner’s qualifications section by presenting a tighter narrative and more concrete evidence of the petitioner’s real-world impact.

​

In addition to reinforcing our client’s own accomplishments, we invested significant time in analyzing the downstream impact of their work. We examined the publications that had cited our client’s research and assessed the quality and reputation of the journals that published them. Rather than focusing only on citations as a metric, we used them to show how the client’s work had meaningfully shaped other credible, peer-reviewed research. This analytical approach required diligence and depth, but it helped demonstrate national value through a broader academic lens.

​

We also took care to ensure procedural soundness. The wording of the RFE led us to suspect that USCIS may not have received all of the original supporting materials. As many practitioners know, petitions are initially screened at a lockbox facility, then forwarded for adjudication at a service center. During this handoff, there is always the risk that evidence can be missed or improperly scanned. To prevent any vital documentation from being overlooked, we included all key materials again in the RFE response. This may have been redundant, but it was a deliberate and cautious step to protect the integrity of the petition and ensure that the officer had everything needed to make a fully informed decision.

​

This level of thoroughness, combined with a proactive mindset and attention to both policy and procedural detail, allowed us to build a response that was not only compliant but compelling.

​

Approval Without Delay

​

After submitting the response, the petition was approved in a matter of weeks, with no additional requests or delays. The strategy worked, and the client’s case succeeded under the new, more exacting standards.

​

Adapting to Change, Then Succeeding

​

This case is an example of how strategic thinking, procedural awareness, and detailed analysis can lead to a positive outcome, even when the landscape shifts. An RFE is not a denial. It is a signal that the officer is looking for something more precise, and with the right response, it is entirely possible to satisfy that inquiry and move the case forward.

​

If you are preparing a National Interest Waiver petition under the new 2025 guidelines, we are here to help. Our approach emphasizes clarity, precision, and a deep understanding of both the policy and the process — because those two details make all the difference.

​

​

​

Disclaimer: This case summary is provided for informational purposes only and should not be taken as a guarantee of future results. Every case is unique, and past approvals do not guarantee success in any particular case. If you are considering an NIW petition, we encourage you to seek a professional evaluation of your specific qualifications.

​