It looks like chaos. It is actually five sentences of statute running like clockwork. I went deep on the mechanics using only official sources (travel.state.gov bulletins, Report of the Visa Office, the INA text itself) and once you see the machine, the jumps and retrogressions become predictable. Sharing the full picture because most bulletin commentary tells you what moved without ever explaining why.

Not a lawyer, not legal advice. FAD values are from official bulletins; the projections are my analysis.

(Diagram attached: the full statutory pipe network with the actual FY26 data stamped on each node.)

TL;DR

• EB-1 India only moves meaningfully when a quarterly surplus exists, and that determination has fired in January bulletins (start of Q2), never October
• 2025 proved the baseline: without surplus, EB-1 India moves roughly zero days per year at current queue density
• China's FAD is the best leading indicator for India. The two dates converge by law when surplus exists and diverge by law when it runs out
• FY2027 setup: October 2026 should partially restore the current retrogression; January 2027 is the high-probability spillover bulletin

1. The machine

Six provisions produce everything you see in the bulletin:

Provision	What it does
INA §201(d)	Worldwide EB level = 140,000 + prior year's unused family-sponsored numbers (the "fall-across"). FY25 came out at 150,037
INA §203(b)(1)	EB-1 gets 28.6% of that (roughly 40K+) plus any numbers not needed by EB-4/EB-5 (the "fall-up")
INA §202(a)(2)	The 7% per-country ceiling. Applied to EB-1, each oversubscribed country's base share is about 2,800/year
INA §202(a)(5)	The surplus switch (AC21, 2000). If EB demand in a calendar quarter won't use all available numbers, the 7% cap "shall not apply." This single sentence creates all spillover
INA §203(e)(1)	Visas issue in strict priority-date order, nationality-blind. Cap off means surplus flows to the oldest unreached dates worldwide
INA §202(e)	The snap-back. When numbers stop going unused, oversubscribed countries get pro-rated back to their share. The heaviest consumer gets retrogressed

DOS controls the pacing (9 FAM 503.4), but the direction of every flow is mandatory. DOS cannot route surplus anywhere except the oldest dates, and cannot spare a country from proration once the limit binds. One more input matters right now: the 2025 proclamations (PP 10949, PP 10998, plus IV processing restrictions) suppress issuance in two places at once. Suppressed family-sponsored usage enlarges next year's EB pool via the fall-across, and suppressed rest-of-world EB demand creates the unused numbers that trip the surplus switch.

EB1 spillover machine

2. The receipts: four years of FAD data

Bulletin	EB-1 India FAD	Movement
through Jan 2023	Current	(no cutoff)
Feb 2023	01 Feb 2022	cutoff imposed
Mar to Jul 2023	01 Feb 2022	held
Aug 2023	01 Jan 2012	▼ 10 yrs (crash brake)
Sep 2023	01 Jan 2012	held
Oct 2023	01 Jan 2017	▲ 5 yrs (FY24 reset)
Nov to Dec 2023	01 Jan 2017	held (Q1 flat)
Jan 2024	01 Sep 2020	▲ 3 yrs 8 mo (Q2 spillover)
approx. Mar/Apr 2024	01 Mar 2021	▲ about 6 mo
approx. Jul/Aug 2024	01 Feb 2022	▲ 11 mo (pre-crash level regained)
Sep 2024 to Mar 2025	01 Feb 2022	held
approx. Apr 2025	15 Feb 2022	▲ 14 days
May to Nov 2025	15 Feb 2022	THE FREEZE. Total 2025 movement: about 6 weeks
Dec 2025	15 Mar 2022	▲ 1 mo
Jan 2026	01 Feb 2023	▲ about 11 mo (Q2 spillover; converged with China)
Feb 2026	01 Feb 2023	held
Mar 2026	01 Mar 2023	▲ 1 mo
Apr 2026	01 Apr 2023	▲ 1 mo (peak)
May 2026	01 Apr 2023	held
Jun 2026	15 Dec 2022	▼ 3.5 mo (proration)
Jul 2026	15 Oct 2022	▼ 2 mo (now)

Pattern: every meaningful advance in four years came in exactly two bulletin types. October resets after a fiscal-year-end crash, and January Q2 spillovers. Everything else was flat or backward.

Proof #1: the 2025 freeze was a control experiment. FY25's worldwide limit dropped to 150,037 as the COVID fall-across washed out, rest-of-world EB-1 demand was strong (the global EB-1A surge), the ~40K pool was fully subscribed, so the §202(a)(5) quarterly test failed all year. Cap never lifted. India got base share only. The January 2025 bulletin came and went with no jump, proving January is a test, not a scheduled release. And a frozen date does not mean zero green cards: India consumed its full allocation all year. A static FAD means newly qualified demand with dates before the cutoff materialized at the same rate as supply. A treadmill. The "first applicant who could not be reached" was the same person for 11 straight bulletins. The lesson: at 2022/2023-era queue density, EB-1 India's organic clearing rate on base share alone is approximately zero days per year. All progress is surplus-dependent.

Proof #2: China caught the mechanism on camera. While India froze in 2025, China crept: small advances of two weeks to a month, all year. That asymmetry is diagnostically perfect. Under §203(e)(1), even scraps of surplus MUST flow to India first (oldest dates), so India frozen = surplus was zero, full stop. China creeping = base share against a thinner queue. Then FY26 showed the other two states. Convergence: the Jan 2026 surplus fired, India jumped ~11 months while China moved 8 days, and both landed on the identical date (01 Feb 2023). The law sends essentially the entire surplus to the trailing country until the dates match. Lockstep: Feb to May 2026, both dates moved as one blended nationality-blind queue to 01 Apr 2023. Divergence: the worldwide limit bound in June, §202(e) fired, India retrogressed 5.5 months across two bulletins while China kept advancing to 01 Jun 2023 on base share alone. Practical read: China's FAD marks where the blended queue has already been processed. When surplus returns, India's convergence target is China's current date, so every month China gains while India sits retrogressed widens the guaranteed catch-up at the next surplus event.

Why the backlog is so dense right there: FY26 was itself a measurement. An unusually large, ban-inflated allocation (India's FY26 use will print well above FY24's 8,809 when Table V publishes) sustainably cleared only Feb 2022 to Oct 2022, about 8 months of priority dates with a full year's supply. DOS reached Apr 2023 transiently, but so much Indian demand materialized at 2023 dates that two retrogressions followed. The late-2022 through mid-2023 cohort is heavily loaded (the EB-1A self-petition boom plus priority-date retention from older I-140s). And note: USCIS's pending I-485 inventory only shows domestic AOS filers. Consular demand is invisible until it materializes at NVC, which is partly why DOS keeps overshooting.

3. FY2027: what to expect and when

The current setup mirrors the FY24 opening (a fiscal-year-end retrogression to unwind), not the FY26 one (a flat year with nothing to restore). The July 2026 bulletin explicitly warns EB-1 India may retrogress further or go Unavailable before Sep 30.

The key insight is that two different spillovers arrive at two different times:

1. The pool enlargement (§201(d) fall-across) is automatic on October 1. The proclamations are suppressing family-sponsored issuance in FY26, and those unused FS numbers roll into the FY27 EB level by statute. Watch for the USCIS/DOS FY27 limit estimate around mid-September (the FY24 version was the ~165,000 announcement). A number well above 140K = a big cushion.
2. The India-specific spillover (§202(a)(5) cap-off) is a quarterly determination that has fired in January in both recent surplus years (Jan 2024: +3.7 yrs; Jan 2026: +11 mo), with Oct to Dec flat both times while DOS gathers actuals.

Scenario weights (my analysis, not DOS):

• Hybrid year (~55 to 60%): October 2026 partial restoration (likely somewhere in the Dec 2022 to Feb 2023 range, echoing Oct 2023's partial restore), Nov/Dec flat, then a January 2027 surge toward China's date, followed by demand materializing and another spring/summer retrogression. An FY26 rerun at a higher level
• Sustained surplus (~25 to 30%): a bigger fall-across plus continued ban suppression keeps the pool ahead of demand; the January advance holds through FY27
• 2025 redux (~10 to 15%): proclamations lifted or amended, ROW demand rebounds, small fall-across. October's restoration still happens (that is base-share arithmetic, not surplus-dependent) but the date then freezes below the 2023 cohort on 2025 physics

Watch list, in order: (1) the September FY27 annual limit estimate; (2) October's restoration size; (3) whether ROW EB-1 stays "Current" with no warning language in the Oct to Dec bulletins; (4) any amendment or litigation touching the proclamations, the single input that could flip everything back to the freeze; (5) China's FAD trajectory, i.e. the convergence target.

For consular-processing folks: a January surge can be transient (FY26 proved it). The date must be current at NVC scheduling AND at issuance. If your PD sits in the plausible convergence zone, get documentarily complete and keep everything interview-ready before the January bulletin drops. NVC schedules in documentarily-complete order and sends appointment letters roughly 2 to 3 months out, and post-level scheduling backlogs vary wildly (check the official IV Scheduling Status Tool for your post).

So: if your PD is in the 2022 to 2023 zone, which scenario are you planning around, and what does your post's scheduling backlog look like? Genuinely curious whether the consular folks are seeing the same picture as the AOS crowd.

Sources: travel.state.gov monthly visa bulletins FY23 to FY26; Report of the Visa Office 2024, Table V; INA §§201(d), 202(a)(2), 202(a)(5), 202(e), 203(b)(1), 203(e)(1); 9 FAM 503.4; DOS "Operation of the Numerical Control Process"; NVC IV Scheduling Status Tool. Two mid-FY24 rows in the table are approximate to the month; the values are right. Happy to be corrected on any specific bulletin value, just drop the official link.

I'm looking for recommendations for an experienced EB-1A attorney, someone who has handled difficult refilings after two denials.

I filed my first EB-1A petition in July'2025. USCIS accepted my publications and judging criteria but issued an RFE on original contributions, critical role and high salary. After responding to the RFE, the petition was denied.

I took only two and half months break and refiled because of my family's immigration timeline. Unfortunately, the second petition followed the same pattern and was denied again. I received the denial notice last week.

I sincerely believe my evidence for original contributions, critical role, and high salary is strong. I Really need an experienced attorney who can thoroughly review my previous filings, identify any weaknesses, and help me build the strongest possible case.

My case is extremely time-sensitive. I came to the U.S. in 2010, and after this long immigration journey, one of my daughters has already aged out. My younger daughter will age out in February 2027. I also have an EB-2 priority date of May 2017, so I have one final opportunity before my daughter's age becomes a major issue.

I understand that many attorneys recommend waiting atleast six months before refiling after an EB-1A denial. Unfortunately, I don't have that option. My goal is to submit a new petition by the end of October (about four moths gap only), which would also leave enough time to respond if USCIS issues another RFE.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned is that the attorney's ability to manage the timeline is just as important as the legal strategy. My first attorney took more than two years to file my petition. Even after I had submitted all of my evidence, my case sat for nearly a year before it was finally filed. That delay created a lot of time pressure, and I rushed my second filing out of panic.

This time I need an attorney I can truly trust to not only build a strong case, but also to stay committed to an agreed timeline and move the case forward without any delays.

If you've personally worked with an attorney who is exceptional with complex EB-1A cases and refilings after denials, I would greatly appreciate your recommendations. Please share your personal experiences both positive and negative, that would be incredibly helpful.

MY BACKGROUND: I am a physical therapist and have developed mobility assessment tools and clinical resources that have been implemented by healthcare organizations across the United States and internationally.

Thank you all very much.

The massive 46K Family-Based spillover announcement has everyone recalculating their timelines. For those of us stuck with an April 2024 Priority Date (EB-1 India), there seem to be two very loud sides to the debate in this community right now:

• The Optimistic View: With FY2026 spillovers and country-specific immigrant visa pauses pushing more allocations to EB-1, some believe the Date for Filing (DOF) could push past April 2024 as early as the October Bulletin, with Final Action Dates (FAD) catching up soon after.
• The Realistic/Pessimistic View: Massive EB-2 to EB-1 porting, soaring EB-1C executive approvals, and a dense 2023 pending I-485 inventory mean an April 2024 PD won't see a green card until closer to 2028 or 2029.

Given the latest USCIS pending inventory numbers and historical patterns, where do you actually see the dates landing?

Drop your predictions below:

1. DOF Month/Year for April 2024:
2. FAD Month/Year for April 2024:
3. The main factor driving your math (Spillovers, Porting, or USCIS Processing Sluggishness)?

Thank you in advance.

Hi all, looking for input before I sign with a firm for my EB-1A.

Quick profile:

• Research scientist in AI at a big tech company, have a PhD
• ~370 citations, h-index 8, 16 peer-reviewed papers (CVPR, ICCV, NeurIPS, IEEE TPAMI, etc.)
• 50+ peer reviews for top venues; co-organized conference tutorials; gave some talks in some events about my work.
• 7 pending US patents
• Media coverage of my research (WSJ, CNBC, Fortune, The Verge, etc.)

Most firms tell me it's a strong/viable case, but the current climate (~40% approval) makes me want to choose carefully.

Firms I talked to: Ellis Porter, Manifest (Mary Russell), Tukki (Dobrina Ustun), Peak (Jason Crofts), Alma, Alagiri, Ashoori. Apparently Chen rejected me as I have an industry profile.

I've narrowed it down to Peak and Tukki. I preferred them because they feel more personalized/boutique and I'd work closely with the actual attorney(s), rather than the larger, more high-volume firms like Ellis Porter and Manifest.

Both are ~$9k–$10k flat, include RFE response + free refile on denial. Peak is essentially a solo senior attorney Jason Crofts who drafts everything himself (email-only, very candid). Tukki is a small dedicated team (2 attorneys (Lead attorney Dobrina Ustun)+ paralegals, platform-based).

Questions:

1. Any direct experience (good or bad) with Peak Immigration (Jason Crofts) or Tukki (Dobrina Ustun) for EB-1A?
2. Solo attorney vs. small team — does it matter for quality on a research case?
3. Anything I should watch out for with either?
4. any other recommendation for firms or lawyers I should look into?

Appreciate any honest experiences or red flags. Thanks!

This criterion causes more RFEs than any other on the list. USCIS wants proof your work changed how others in your field operate, not just that you did good work.

What qualifies:

• Citations showing other researchers built on your methodology
• Adoption of your process, tool, or framework by an organization outside your own
• A patent that has been licensed, implemented, or cited in later filings
• Independent expert letters explaining the specific impact of your contribution, not just praising your career

What does not qualify on its own:

• A general letter saying you are talented
• Publication alone, without evidence of downstream impact
• Internal recognition from your own employer

The strongest EB-1A petitions connect the contribution to a measurable outcome. Adoption numbers, efficiency gains, industry change, or citation counts all work. Vague praise does not.

If you are drafting an expert letter for this criterion, ask the writer to name the specific mechanism of influence. What changed because of your work, and who can verify it.

I'm considering using GCEB1 for EB-1A help, but I’m not sure what to make of it and haven’t found many independent reviews.

If you’ve worked with them, how was your experience? Did it actually help with your EB-1A preparation in any meaningful way?

Just trying to figure out if it’s worth it before I decide. Thanks.

Disclosure upfront, we're OpenSphere and we handle O-1A and EB-1A cases.

Here's what all 8 had in common.
- Every single one almost didn't apply
- None of the files started strong
- The raw evidence looked ordinary. A judging gig. A press mention. Work people use but nobody wrote up
- What changed was the framing, not the applicant

Extraordinary doesn't mean Nobel Prize. It means meeting specific criteria with evidence framed the right way.

The biggest filter isn't USCIS. It's people counting themselves out too early.

Questions welcome in the comments.

u/ManifestLaw_

About a month ago, I made a post here about my experience with Manifest Law while preparing my EB-1A RFE response.

After that post—and after numerous attempts to reach the firm through Instagram, Reddit, LinkedIn, the contact form on their website, customer support, and phone calls—things finally started moving. Someone reached out to me, work on my case actually progressed, and I finally started receiving drafted sections of my RFE response.

I have now seen enough of the legal work to say that my attorney is clearly putting significant effort into the case, and the documents themselves look well prepared.

Unfortunately, the main problem that led me to write my original post has not changed.

The issue was never the quality of the legal work.

The issue has always been missed deadlines and the lack of communication.

Every Zoom meeting includes not only my attorney but also a representative from Manifest Law’s client support team. During each meeting, we carefully discuss the work plan, agree on specific deadlines, and even set exact dates and times for when each section will be delivered.

After every meeting, I send a written summary of everything we agreed on so the entire team has the same understanding of the schedule.

Unfortunately, after the meetings, the same pattern repeats itself.

Deadlines pass.

Documents don’t arrive.

And I receive no communication explaining that the schedule has changed or that additional time is needed.

For example, yesterday I was supposed to receive the next section of my RFE response.

It never arrived.

Today, according to the new timeline we agreed on during our latest Zoom meeting, I was supposed to receive not only yesterday’s overdue section but also several additional sections.

Once again, I received nothing.

As of now, I have not received any of the documents that were supposed to be delivered over the past two days.

The most frustrating part is that this has become a repeating cycle.

During every Zoom meeting, I’m assured that everything is under control. We agree on a new schedule and set specific deadlines.

Then the meeting ends.

The deadlines pass.

The documents don’t arrive.

And the cycle starts all over again.

Honestly, if someone simply sent me a short email saying, “We’re running behind and need one more day,” I would completely understand. I’m not expecting perfection. I understand that preparing a strong EB-1A RFE response takes time and that schedules sometimes need to change.

What is difficult is reaching an agreed deadline and then hearing absolutely nothing afterward. That uncertainty leaves me with no choice but to contact customer support again simply to find out what is happening with my case.

I’m writing this post mainly for people who are considering Manifest Law.

If you’re interested, you can read my previous posts for the full background. I’ve tried to document this process honestly from the beginning.

I’m genuinely curious whether others who have worked with Manifest Law—or with other immigration firms on an EB-1A RFE—have experienced something similar.

Is this level of communication normal, or do most firms proactively let their clients know when agreed deadlines need to be adjusted?

Hi there,
I received an EB-1A RFE. Three of my criteria were accepted, and I'm wondering what to expect next. Has anyone been in a similar situation? What was the outcome of your case?

I have a PhD in cancer biology and work in a R1 university as a postdoc. I have 8 publications (2 first author papers, 2 first author review articles) and 4 other conference abstracts (1 first author). 265 citations. I have reviewed papers 60 times. One of the drug introduced in one of my co-authored paper is in phase 1 clinical trial. Another conference abstract I am part of is about phase 2 clinical trial. I am also a PI on a research grant I have received from a american research society, have a young investigator award and travel award from another society for a conference I presented in (chen has mentioned these in the petition but did not use it as criteria-probably not prestigious enough). Have 1 dependent (phd supervisor) recommendation (happens to be pioneer in the field-outside usa), 3 independent- all from different countries including usa ( 2 have cited my work but all have mentioned the importance of my work in the field). Really worried with so many rfes and rejections.

How long does it take for the USCIS to charge your credit for PP petition sent to lockbox in Tempe, AZ approximately?

I’ve seen Manifest getting a ton of negative reviews over the past couple of weeks - mostly around shoddy work and non responsiveness. So I’m wondering, if I get one of their money back plans, will I be in good shape? Because at that point, their incentives are aligned with mine right?

If anyone has recommendations on other lawyers who offer a money back guarantee, would love them. In general, I prefer this because then the incentives are aligned.

Thanks!

OC : specifically wants objective evidence showing impact across the field, such as widespread commentary, significant citations, implementation by others, contracts with companies using the product, licensed technology, or patents being used

CT - Support letters did not contain detailed and probative information showing how your role was leading or critical. evidence must prove the organization or establishment has a distinguished reputation

https://preview.redd.it/eca63m092gah1.jpg?width=3672&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=829601913dc47533d419d621948fd34128d9e063

I'm Avalon Paul, an immigration attorney at Manifest Law. A good part of my practice is EB-1A petitions, which means helping people figure out whether they actually qualify and then building a case around the evidence rather than the hype.

EB-1A rewards documentation and a clear argument, so I'll keep my answers focused on what holds up. I'll be here [Weekday, Month Day, 2026] from 1 to 5 p.m. EDT.

The kind of thing I can help with:

• How many of the ten criteria do I really need to meet, and how strong does each have to be?
• I don't have a major international award. Can I still qualify?
• What does USCIS mean by "sustained national or international acclaim"?
• Do my recommendation letters need to come from people I don't already know?
• How is the EB-1A standard different from EB-2 NIW?
• I got an RFE on the final merits determination. How do I respond?

If you're trying to gauge whether it's even worth attempting, that's a great first question. Throw your questions in the thread and I'll work down the list.

(Please note: Any information shared here is for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Your situation may require fact-specific guidance. For personalized legal advice, please consult an immigration attorney directly.)

Any I485 derivatives who weren’t approved with principal? How long did you have to wait before your approval came through? I’m a derivative applicant still waiting for approval and the principal in my case was approved on May 16. Most cases I’ve seen are when the derivatives get approved immediately after the principal so not sure why that hasn’t happened in my case.

I filed in October 2025, case was transferred to Harlingen TX on Dec 23, silent updates in Feb (someone at Harlingen probably looked at my file and couldn’t action as primary wasn’t approved yet). Principals file moved to San Bernardino FO in April and my file moved to the same FO on April 24 (received a third FTA0 and Emma confirmed). So seems like our files are linked but not sure why my approval didn’t happen concurrently/immediately after. Tried congressional inquiry that resulted in a boilerplate reply. So tired of waiting and constantly checking the API for updates and would love to get an idea of how often this has happened to others and what the resolution timeframe was.

I recently received an RFE on my EB-1A petition (filed through an attorney). The officer approved 2 criteria:
-High Salary
-Published Media

However, they issued an RFE for the remaining four: Critical Role, Original Contributions of Major Significance (OCMS), Judging, and Awards.

After reviewing my options and speaking with a few attorneys (who all seem to have conflicting opinions), I’ve decided to take the risk and respond to the RFE myself. I am planning to withdraw the Awards criterion entirely since they were internal company awards rather than internationally/nationally recognized.

I will focus my response on Critical Role, OCMS, and Judging.
I would love to get some insights from this community on a few specific questions:

1. Critical Role Letters: Same vs. New Signatories?

For the Critical Role RFE, can I submit updated or more detailed letters from the same people who signed the letters in my original petition? Or is it highly recommended to get completely new letters signed by different people at my current or previous companies?

2. OCMS: Proving "Major Significance" without Employer Support?

The RFE acknowledged my patent, which satisfies the originality part, but they need more evidence to prove Major Significance (e.g., public commentary, contracts, licensing agreements, or commercial implementation).
The catch: My current employer is not very cooperative/friendly regarding sharing proprietary contracts or metrics.
How have others successfully proven Major Significance for patents when your employer won't provide corporate contracts or internal data?

3. FMD: For those who handled their own RFE response after an attorney filed the initial petition, how did you approach editing or rewriting the FMD section? Did you completely overhaul the attorney's original framework, or just build directly on top of it?

Thanks in advance!

Hey all! 👋

I'm actively looking for opportunities to serve as a judge for hackathons or similar in 2026, virtual or in-person, and would love any leads, referrals, or introductions to organizers.

A little about me:

• Software Development Engineer with 6+ years at a well-known FAANG company working on large-scale distributed systems and ad-tech platforms.
• 8+ years of total industry experience
• Hold a Master Degree in Computer Science
• Hands-on experience across AWS services
• Experienced in multiple hackathons
• Active mentor to junior engineers and interns

What I can bring as a judge:

I have a strong technical lens on distributed systems, cloud infrastructure, scalability, and real-time data platforms particularly useful for hackathons focused on AI/ML applications, cloud-native development, ad tech, or general software engineering. I enjoy evaluating not just what teams build, but how they think through architecture and trade-offs.

I'm open to both virtual and in-person events, and happy to share more details or connect directly with organizers if helpful.

Any leads, DMs, or introductions are genuinely appreciated, thanks in advance! 🙏

I’ve posted about my experience before, but I want to summarize the full situation in one place because I’m at a point where I urgently need advice.

Earlier this year, I started working with Manifest Law on my O-1A business case. Since then, the process has caused major delays and uncertainty in my career, business planning, travel plans, and overall life.

For months, there were significant delays, limited progress, and ongoing communication issues. After I raised concerns, the Manifest Law team reached out several times and assured me they would assign additional support, involve more team members, and help keep the case moving forward. Unfortunately, that did not match my experience. Despite those assurances, progress remained slow, and communication continued to be inconsistent.

Elena from Manifest Law, who had been one of my main points of contact, has now stopped responding to me completely across multiple channels. The other attorneys who were assigned have completely withdrawn as well.

I’m honestly shocked by how this has developed, especially given how important and time-sensitive this case is.

Eventually, my O-1A petition was filed with premium processing, but USCIS issued a Request for Evidence. Based on the RFE, a significant portion of the evidence submitted is now being challenged as insufficient, lacking the right support, or not presented in the right way.

This has left me in an extremely difficult situation. I had already booked flights back to Europe with the expectation of moving forward with consular processing. Now I don’t even have a consular appointment, and my entire plan for the year has been thrown into uncertainty. I can’t sleep, I can’t take on my W2 employment, and my personal life is affected too.

At this point, I need a serious game plan. I cannot continue to just wait, hope things move forward, and risk more of my life, business, and career on unclear next steps.

Is anyone here an experienced O-1A attorney, especially for business, entrepreneurship, marketing, or founder cases, who offers urgent RFE reviews or second opinions?

My understanding is that the RFE response is the critical opportunity to strengthen the case before submission. If the response is not handled properly and the case is denied, I will have lost months of time, the premium processing fee, and potentially the opportunity to stabilize my plans in the U.S.

I would really appreciate recommendations from anyone who has dealt with a complex O-1A RFE before, especially where the original filing may not have presented the evidence strongly enough.

Hi there! I recently filed an updated I-140 application in the EB-1B category after joining Big Tech Company A earlier this year. I previously had an approved I-140 EB1-B application from Big Tech Company B, with a Priority Date of September 2023.

A bit about my qualifying criteria in the application:

- Senior Researcher at a Big Tech company with 7+ years of experience.
- Authored 14 research papers in AI, most of which were accepted to Tier 1 conferences and journals. Citation count upwards of 1k.
- 1 granted US patent valid from 2019-39.
- Reviewed 20+ papers at 6 different AI conferences in the last 5 years.
- 25+ articles with media coverage of my work (including a few where I have been quoted).

Since my first approval in September 2023, I have:

- 5x-ed my citation count.
- Published 3 more papers.
- Shipped models on a scale of billions of users around the world.

I see the status on the USCIS site is ‘Notice Explaining USCIS' Actions Was Mailed’. The evidence on what this actually means is very ambiguous – some accounts suggest it could be an RFE/NOID while others suggest it could be an approval too. A NOID seems statistically most likely based on other cases.

I wonder if anybody else has seen such a notice on their EB-1B applications before, and what the follow-up steps were? I’ll know better in a week with the official notice, but I’m looking to be prepared for the worst case scenario with contingency plans regardless (including potentially filing a EB1-A through a different legal agency).

Any insights from experience would be much appreciated.

Thanks!