For many National Interest Waiver applicants, the first reaction to a Request for Evidence is to assume the case is effectively lost. The notice is long, the language is technical, and it arrives after months of waiting. It is easy to read it as a verdict.
Legally and practically, it is not. An RFE is a sign that the case is still alive. It means the adjudicating officer is not prepared to approve, on the existing record, but is giving the applicant a defined opportunity to clarify, supplement, and reorganize the evidence. If handled carefully, that opportunity can be decisive.
This article explains what an NIW RFE actually is, why even strong cases receive them, and
how to approach one in a structured, measured way.
1. What An RFE Is, And What It Is Not
In an NIW petition, USCIS can do three main things at the end of initial review: approve, deny, or issue a Request for Evidence. The RFE sits between approval and denial. It is the agency’s formal way of saying that, on the current documentary record, one or more legal elements are not sufficiently established.
An RFE is:
● A written notice identifying perceived gaps or ambiguities in the evidence.
● A request for specific additional documents, clarification, or legal argument.
● A time-limited invitation to complete the record.
An RFE is not:
● A denial in disguise.
● A statement that the applicant is unqualified as a professional.
● A punishment for applying without counsel.
The key point is that USCIS is not obligated to issue an RFE. The officer could deny outright if they believed the case does not meet the established framework for approval. The fact that an RFE was issued signals that the officer sees at least a plausible path to approval, provided the record is strengthened with additional evidence.
2. Why Strong NIW Profiles Still Receive RFEs
Many applicants assume that only weak or marginal NIW cases attract RFEs. In practice, that
is not accurate.
Several patterns are common.
First, NIW work is often technically complex. Officers are generalists who handle a wide range of employment-based categories. They are not specialists in a particular subfield of engineering, medicine, or social science. If the petition materials do not clearly translate the work into terms of national importance and practical impact, the officer may request clarification, even if the underlying achievements are impressive.
Second, the problem is frequently not the applicant’s record, but the narrative. A petition might present a long list of publications, projects, or roles, yet fail to connect them explicitly to the Dhanasar framework. The officer may see activity but not see, in a structured way, how the work satisfies the three prongs: substantial merit and national importance, the applicant being well positioned, and the balance of equities favoring a waiver of the job offer and labor certification. RFEs often ask for those connections to be made more explicit.
Third, templates are common in immigration practice. When a petition relies heavily on generic language, recycled phrasing, or boilerplate descriptions of “national importance”, the officer will usually push back. NIW is inherently individualized. If the case sounds interchangeable with many others, an RFE is likely.
Finally, policy changes and internal training also play a role. When guidance tightens or when a particular field becomes more common in the NIW pipeline, officers may be instructed to look more closely, which naturally leads to more RFEs even for applicants with strong backgrounds. In other words, an RFE does not automatically say “you are not strong enough”. It often says “you have not yet explained your strength in the way this legal standard requires”.
3. First Reactions And Why They Matter
The first time reviewing an RFE notice might be an overwhelming experience. Applicants
read a few paragraphs, conclude that denial is inevitable, and either shut down or start
drafting in a panic. Both reactions carry risk: they encourage rushed, fragmentary responses
that do not engage with the legal issues the officer has actually raised.
At this stage, the most constructive steps are limited and simple:
● Reviewing the RFE once from beginning to end, without trying to solve every point.
● Note the response deadline and keep the original envelope or notification, as it may be
relevant to calculating that deadline.
● Avoid drafting arguments or collecting documents on your own before you have a
clear strategy.
The goal in these first days is not to “answer” the RFE yourself. It is to understand, at a high level, what is being questioned and to put yourself in a position to seek targeted help.
4. What An RFE Is Really Asking
Despite the dense language, most NIW RFEs revolve around a small set of underlying questions:
● How does this work matter beyond the applicant’s own career or employer, at a
national level in the United States?
● What concrete facts show that the applicant is capable of executing the plan described
in the petition?
● Why is it beneficial for the United States to allow this applicant to proceed without the usual job offer and labor certification process?
Identifying these basic themes is important because it clarifies that the RFE is not a test of
how well an applicant can write legal arguments. It is an invitation to supply a better
organized and better supported account of impact, capability, and policy rationale.
Translating those themes into an actual response, however, is legal work. It requires
understanding how the Dhanasar framework is applied in practice, what kinds of evidence are
persuasive in a particular field, and how to avoid inconsistent or incomplete explanations.
5. The Limits Of A Do-It-Yourself Approach
NIW petitions already ask applicants to navigate a complex intersection of facts and law. At the RFE stage, the stakes and the level of scrutiny both increase. A response that is poorly framed, internally inconsistent, or overloaded with irrelevant material can make approval less likely, even if the applicant’s underlying record is strong.
For that reason, it is usually unwise to treat the RFE as a template to be filled in at home. The notice is written for legal professionals. Phrases such as “the record does not establish” or “you have not demonstrated that” have specific implications in immigration adjudication. Attempting to respond point by point without understanding those implications can inadvertently reinforce, rather than resolve, the officer’s concerns.
Applicants play a critical role at this stage by providing accurate facts, updated information, and access to potential recommenders or documents. But turning that raw material into a coherent, legally grounded response is typically the work of experienced counsel.
6. Why Professional Help Is Sensible
Not every RFE is equally complex, but most NIW RFEs benefit from professional involvement.
If the RFE challenges the core NIW elements, rather than asking for simple missing items, or if it is lengthy and dense with legal citations, counsel can help translate the notice into a coherent strategy. This is especially true where the original petition was self-prepared and the applicant is unsure whether the framing of the proposed endeavor and the choice of evidence were appropriate.
An experienced NIW practitioner has seen many RFEs. Patterns that look unique and alarming to an individual applicant are often familiar. That familiarity helps in distinguishing between concerns that are serious and those that are routine, and in deciding where to focus limited time and effort before the response deadline.
In practical terms, professional assistance typically includes analyzing the RFE in light of current case law and policy, identifying the most efficient way to address the officer’s questions, advising on which documents or experts will be most helpful, and drafting a response that is internally consistent and clearly organized from the adjudicator’s point of view.
For applicants, this means that the most productive use of their time is not to draft legal arguments, but to work with counsel to assemble accurate, well-documented facts that can be presented effectively.
7. A Request For Evidence As A Second Chance
An NIW petition is essentially a written argument about future value. It depends on facts, but it also depends on how those facts are organized and connected to a legal framework.
An RFE indicates that, on first reading, some of those connections were not convincing enough. It does not say that they cannot be made. It invites a second attempt, under clearer instructions.
If an applicant treats the RFE as a structured set of questions, uses it to reorganize the narrative of the case, and supplements the record with focused evidence and thoughtful expert support, the response often ends up stronger than the original filing.
The discouraging moment when the notice arrives is real. But from the perspective of the case itself, the more important moment is what happens next: a calm reading of the officer’s concerns, and a methodical plan to answer them.
Taken together, these steps do not guarantee approval, but they restore meaningful control to
the applicant. Instead of treating the RFE as a closed door, it is more accurate to see it as a
precise description of what remains to be done. Responding with clarity, discipline, and
appropriate support gives the officer the best possible record on which to decide, and gives
the applicant a process that is structured rather than reactive.
FAQs
1. What is an NIW RFE and what does it mean for my case?
An NIW RFE (Request for Evidence) is not a denial. It’s a formal request from USCIS
asking for additional information or clarification on certain aspects of the petition. It signals
that the case is still active, and USCIS is giving you an opportunity to strengthen your
application with more evidence or clarification.
2. Why do strong NIW cases still receive RFEs?
Even strong cases can receive RFEs due to technical complexities, unclear narratives, or
insufficient connection to national interest criteria. An RFE may ask for more explicit links
between the applicant’s work and the Dhanasar framework or national priorities, or may
request clearer evidence of the applicant’s ability to carry out their proposed endeavor.
3. What is the best way to approach an RFE?
The first step after receiving an RFE is to review it thoroughly and understand what is being
requested. Avoid panicking or drafting a response immediately. Take the time to develop a
clear strategy, and if necessary, seek professional help to ensure that the response is
structured, legally grounded, and addresses the officer's concerns comprehensively.
Helpful resources for you to go through:
1. The USCIS has defined what is considered to be evidence and what type of evidence can be submitted in response to the RFE,
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-6
