Immigration practitioners who file EB-1A (extraordinary ability) petitions have likely noticed something shifting in the Requests for Evidence coming back from USCIS over the past several months. It’s not that the agency is asking for new categories of evidence — the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) haven’t changed. What’s changed is the tone and structure of the objections, and it’s worth naming the pattern plainly so petitioners and counsel know what they may be walking into.
1. Authenticity doubt has replaced evidentiary gap as the default objection.
A few years ago, an RFE on the “critical role” or “judging” criteria typically identified a missing piece of documentation — no evidence of the organization’s reputation, no proof the reviewed work was actually published, that sort of thing. Increasingly, the objection instead goes to authenticity itself: a recommendation letter “does not appear authentic,” contains “hyperbolic claims,” or reads as though it “may have been written with AI tools.” These findings often arrive without identifying which sentence is hyperbolic, what an “authentic” version would look like, or what methodology led to the AI-generated conclusion. That absence matters — under Zahedi v. INS, an adverse credibility or evidentiary finding needs “specific, cogent reasons,” not a conclusory label. But the burden-shifting effect is real in practice: petitioners are now routinely asked to affirmatively prove a negative (that a document wasn’t fabricated) rather than simply supplement a gap.
2. Timing itself is being treated as circumstantial evidence of manufacture.
A second recurring theme: RFEs noting that an award, a membership, or a published article was obtained “shortly before” the petition was filed, with the implication that the credential was pursued specifically to inflate the record rather than earned through genuine professional development. This is a curious inversion — the more logical reading of a strong, recent credential is usually that a professional’s stature has been rising, which is exactly the trajectory the statute contemplates. Neither the statute nor the regulation imposes any minimum interval between achievement and filing, and there’s no principled alternative sequence the agency has ever articulated (should petitioners file first and hope to acquire qualifying evidence afterward?). Still, this “timing equals motive” inference is showing up across multiple criteria in the same petition, suggesting it’s becoming something closer to a template response than a case-specific concern.
3. “Predatory journal” and “vanity award” labels are being applied without a named source or methodology.
Scholarly publication and awards criteria are seeing a related trend: journals and awards programs being characterized as illegitimate — prioritizing profit over peer review, inflating impact metrics, having generic scope — without citing any recognized authority (no DOAJ delisting notice, no Cabells’ Predatory Reports entry, no COPE finding) and without journal-by-journal analysis when multiple publications are at issue. The label is applied to the group, not the specific evidence.
4. Staffing and consulting arrangements are drawing scrutiny that seems disconnected from the actual employment relationship.
For petitioners working through IT staffing or consulting arrangements — extremely common in this industry — RFEs are increasingly treating the mere existence of a third-party payroll relationship as grounds to question whether letters from client-side supervisors reflect a genuine, substantive working relationship. This overlooks how normal that arrangement is in the industry, and, notably, letters that voluntarily disclose the staffing structure (rather than obscuring it) are arguably more credible for having done so, not less.
5. Salary comparisons are being mischaracterized in ways that misstate the underlying government data.
On the “high salary” criterion, we’re seeing RFEs describe the Department of Labor’s Level IV (highest, “fully competent”) wage benchmark as representing an “average” salary — when Level IV is, by design, the ceiling of the published wage scale, not its midpoint. A petitioner sitting just below Level IV is often well above the actual published mean for the same occupation and geography — a materially different fact pattern than what “about average” suggests.
What this adds up to?
None of these five patterns, on their own, is necessarily improper — USCIS is entitled to scrutinize evidence and has legitimate concerns about fraud in this space. But taken together, they suggest a shift in adjudicative posture: from “show us more” to “prove the negative,” often through generalized findings that don’t engage with the specific record already in front of the agency. For petitioners and counsel, the practical implication is that a strong initial filing may increasingly need to anticipate not just gaps, but conclusory doubt — and be built, from the outset, with the kind of specific, cross-referenced, verifiable detail that makes a generic objection harder to sustain.
Whether this trend reflects a durable policy shift or a temporary posture remains to be seen. But it’s worth every EB-1A practitioner having this pattern in mind — both when advising clients on what to include at filing, and when an RFE lands that reads more like an accusation than a request.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
