Received RFE with 2/5 accepted criteria

Hi everyone, 

I submitted my I-140 back in February 2025, upgraded to PP in December 2025, and received an RFE in January (Officer: XM2115). I have applied for 5 criteria:

1. Nationally Recognized Prize - Not granted
2. Judging the Work of Others - Granted
3. Original contributions - Not granted
4. Authorship of Scholarly Articles - Granted
5. Critical role - Not granted

I'm seeking help from this community on how to tackle this RFE with a focus on the original contributions criteria. Nevertheless, I also plan to argue for the other two criteria, as I believe I have a strong claim.

**Profile:** Staff R&D Electrical Engineer (<5 years) in a world-renowned company and former post-doc in a top-100 University (worldwide).



# Nationally Recognized Prize

**Text extracted from the RFE:**

>You have provided:

>\- Award documentation

>\- Information about the award

>\- Information about granting organization

>\- Letters of support

>\- Internet printouts  


>The petitioner has submitted prizes or awards received by the beneficiary that are not considered to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The record only contains evidence of the awards or prizes but there is insufficient objective evidence to ascertain whether the awards or prizes are nationally recognized or internationally recognized, for excellence in the field of endeavor, and in beneficiary’s field. Without objective documentary evidence about the awards or prizes, the petitioner impedes USCIS in determining whether the awards or prizes satisfy all of the elements within this criterion.

>The petitioner is required to submit evidence to establish that the prizes or awards were given for excellence in the beneficiary’s field of endeavor, or that the primary purpose of the prizes or awards was to recognize excellence in the beneficiary’s field. If the petitioner believes that the prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, the petitioner may submit:  
\- The criteria used to give the prizes or awards.  
\- Information on the reputation of the organization granting the prizes or awards.  
\- Documentary evidence demonstrating:  
\- The significance of the prizes or awards, to include the national or international recognition the prizes or awards share;  
\- The reputation of the organization granting the prizes or awards;  
\- Who is considered for the prizes or awards, including the geographic scope for which candidates may apply;  
\- How many prizes or awards are awarded each year;  
\- Previous winners who enjoy national or international acclaim; and,  
\- Documentary evidence establishing how the award(s) was/were given for excellence in the beneficiary’s field.  
  
The petitioner may submit any other information about the prizes or awards that would help establish that the prizes or awards should be considered as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.

  
**What I have submitted:**

* Proof of the award received (photo of the diploma): Best PhD Thesis. Award, issued by a national IEEE section. 
* Guidelines for the attribution of this award.
* News articles highlighting the prize being attributed to me (not in traditional media, but in the webpages of my former research institution during my PhD and from the IEEE section in my country).
* CV from the previous winner.
* Information about IEEE and the IEEE section in my country.
* Information about the IEEE mission.
* LoR from the President of my local IEEE section, whom I never met/work in person.



**What arguments I have used:**

* Award (issued by the IEEE section of my country) distinguished the best PhD Thesis in 2023 within all areas of Electrical Engineering in my country.
* IEEE is the most prestigious organization in Electrical Engineering.
* Importance and exclusivity of the award (using the LoR from the president of the IEEE section).
* Significance of the award (using the LoR mentioned above and 1 extra LoR from my previous PhD supervisor).
* Rigorous selection process of the award (using the award guidelines and the LoR from the president of the IEEE section): focus on originality, technical quality, scientific impact, and relevance.
* Critical challenges addressed by my work (both LoRs mentioned above).
* Broader impact of the prize and reference to the previous winner, and how his current research impacts his field (both LoRs mentioned above).



# Original Contributions

**Text extracted from the RFE:**

>You have submitted  
\- Documentation about projects  
\- Letters of support  
\- Publications by petitioner  
\- Documentation about organizations  
\- Internet printouts

>This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show that the beneficiary’s contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor. The record shows that the beneficiary has worked on various projects in the field. The information about the beneficiary’s work projects and the application of the work by others is indicative of the originality of the work. However, the documentation does not establish that the contribution has impacted or been of major significance to the field as a whole. The petitioner is required to demonstrate through independent and objective evidence that not only has the beneficiary made original contributions, but also that the contributions have been of major significance in the field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115.

>The petitioner also submitted evidence of papers authored by the beneficiary. Publication alone may serve as evidence of originality, but a particular article cannot be considered influential if the evidence does not show that other researchers have relied upon the authors' findings. In addition, while a moderate number of citations to the petitioner's work demonstrates awareness of the work and its value, not every researcher who performs moderately valuable research has inherently made an original contribution to the academic field as a whole. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the number of citations is indicative of major significance to the field.

>The petitioner submitted letters from individuals in the beneficiary’s field. The letters compliment the petitioner’s work and claim that the petitioner’s innovations are important to the field. However, the author of the letters do not provide specific detail examples of how the petitioner’s contributions have been of major significance to the field.

>Evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary’s contributions are not only original, but that they are of major significance in the field. The evidence does not demonstrate the major significance of the beneficiary’s original contributions. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:  
\- Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s contribution to the field.  
\- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the beneficiary’s work important.  
\- Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.  
\- Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.  
\- Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others. Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:  
\- Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;  
\- Licensed technology being used by others;  
\- Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.

>Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by documentary evidence are insufficient.

  
**What I have submitted:**

* Provisional patent documentation.
* Email from law firm confirming the patent filing, listing the names of the inventors.
* Relevant publications following on the same work.
* LoRs from my post-doc supervisors (from academia and industry).
* Citation stats from Scopus (contains citations, percentile, and FWCI).
* Independent LoRs of 2 Professors in my field (one is Co-Editor-in-Chief of a top IEEE journal) that cited my work.
* Proof of multiple IEEE journal papers being accepted into special sessions.
* Proof of being featured in a webinar alongside a panel of experienced Professors in my area.
* Multiple oral presentations at IEEE top conferences, one being distinguished as Best Presentation.

**What arguments I have used:**

* Patent submitted in the scope of an industry-sponsored research project during my postdoc.
* Method patented was deemed important by the company sponsoring our research project (LoRs from my supervisors, both from academia and industry sides).
* Method patented also resulted in a publication at a top IEEE journal and an oral presentation at the #1 IEEE conference in my field.
* I have 3 papers among the most cited in the field (paper #1 among the top 5%, paper #2 among the top 6%, and paper #3 among the top 8%).
* My work has been cited by renowed Professors in the area (supported by two independent LoRs).
* My PhD research has brought impactful contributions to the field (cross-reference to the Best Thesis Prize).
* Several IEEE journal publications featured in Special Sessions, which demonstrates their impact in the field (letter from my former PhD supervisor mentioning that SSs are usually reserved for top scientists in the field).
* Invited to disseminate knowledge through a webinar and multiple oral presentations at top IEEE conferences demonstrates the impact of my work in both academia and industry.



# Critical Role

>You have provided:  
\- Letters of support  
\- Documentation about the organizations   
\- Internet printouts

>This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not indicate that the role the beneficiary performed was leading or critical. The petitioner is required to submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment’s activities or demonstrate that, if a leading role, the beneficiary is (or was) a leader. To assist in determining that the beneficiary has performed in a leading or critical role, the petitioner may submit:

>\- Letters from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) with personal knowledge of the significance of the beneficiary’s leading or critical role.  
\- The letters should contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the beneficiary’s role for the organization or establishment, or a division or department within the organization or establishment, is or was leading or critical. Details should include the specific tasks or accomplishments of the beneficiary as compared to others who are employed in similar pursuits within the field of endeavor.  
\- The letters should include the name, address, and title of the writer.  
\- If letters from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) with personal knowledge of the significance of the beneficiary’s leading or critical role are unavailable, the petitioner may submit:  
\- Documentary evidence to demonstrate how the beneficiary’s role was/is leading or critical for the organizations or establishments or the division or department of an organization or establishment.  
\- If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the beneficiary is (or was) a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is (or was), in fact, leading within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof.  
\- If a critical role, the evidence must establish that the beneficiary has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment’s activities or the activities of a division or department within the organization or establishment. A supporting role may be considered “critical” if the beneficiary’s performance in the role is (or was) important in that way. It is not the title of the beneficiary’s role, but rather the beneficiary’s performance in the role that determines whether the role is (or was) critical.

>This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not indicate that the organizations, establishments, or a division or a department of an organization or establishment for which the beneficiary has claimed to perform in leading or critical roles have a distinguished reputation. The evidence does not sufficiently document the organizations' or establishments' eminence, distinction, or excellence To assist in determining that company has a distinguished reputation, the petitioner may submit:  
\- Evidence to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the organizations or establishments, or a division or a department of an organization or establishment for which the beneficiary performed in leading or critical roles.  
\- The evidence should document the organizations or establishments eminence, distinction, or excellence. Evidence to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the organization or establishment relating to its relative size and longevity.

>Note:

>\- Evidence explaining the relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor but is considered together with other information to determine whether a distinguished reputation exists.

**What I have submitted:**

* Letter of employment for my postdoc (contains start and end dates, responsibilities, etc.)
* Research participant agreement
* THE World University Ranking
* LoRs from my postdoc supervisors (from academia and industry sides)
* Internet news articles talking about my former research group collaborating with relevant industry players

**What arguments I have used:**

* University ranked around the position 100th in the world.
* Research institute partners with major players in my field.
* I played a critical role in the research developed in the project, which led to 1 patent and other scholarly publications (backed by LoRs mentioned above).
* The company sponsoring our research is a US-based company and an industry leader in my field.
* LoR from industry-side talks about the improvement (in %) that my research brought to their specific application and highlights my indispensable role in the project.
* LoR from academia (not independent) highlights potential for commercialization of the patented method in sustainable mobility.



# Quick questions for the community:

It seems that USCIS overlooked and/or completely ignored some of the evidence I presented. The most obvious one being the patent!

1) For Awards, what specifically counts as “objective evidence” of national recognition when the award is issued by a national IEEE section (and media coverage is mostly institutional/IEEE channels)? I provided the selection criteria, information on the granting organization, candidate/competition details, and context about prior winners, yet the RFE still says there is “insufficient objective evidence.” What additional documentation typically addresses this specific deficiency?

2) For Original Contributions, what types of evidence have you seen work best to prove “major significance” beyond citations and recommendation letters? I have provide Scopus statistics (3 of my IEEE journal papers in the top 5%, 6% and 8% of the field) and LoRs from independent and experienced Professors in the field mentioning how relevant is my research and how they have cited it in their work. How should I present this information so the officer views it as field-significant?

3) The RFE says expert letters are too general. I have 3 LoRs mentioning my original research that resulted in a patent and publications. The LoRs also mention numbers (e.g., performance improvement of 10%) and high potential for product application. However, the officer does not make any reference to that. The officer only mentions citations.

4) For the patent, if it’s not yet licensed/commercialized publicly, what is the best way to show real-world significance in a way USCIS tends to accept? I only have the provisional patent application document (with the Attorney Docket), which does not include the list of inventors. I have also provided an email copy from the IP Lawyer confirming the patent application submission and listing all the inventors, but this evidence was ignored. 

5) For Critical Role, what documents usually move the needle? I tried to combine the patent with my critical role in the project (backed by LoRs from my academia and industry supervisors) with the interest of the company to implement the method in their products, but it was not enough.

6) USCIS seems to be treating my field as “Electrical Engineering” (EE), which is too broad. My actual endeavor is "Electric Drives", which is a subfield of Electrical Engineering. I think this “over-broad field” framing diluted my evidence, because impact needs to be measured against the correct subfield community, not all of EE. How to address this issue? All of my LoRs mention "Electrical Drives" as my field. I use the same term in my petition. It seems the officer did not read my petition.

7) Has anyone had experience with officer ID XM2115 and noticed patterns in reasoning or evidence they tend to discount? If yes, what worked in the response?

8) Any suggestions on how to tackle this RFE and make the response harder to dismiss? It feels a bit discouraging when we spend so much time gathering evidence and writing a petition to receive an RFE that does not fully consider all of our arguments/evidence.