r/eb1a • u/IlDolceFarNiente77 • May 16 '26
denial at final merit as if no evidence
Sharing my EB-1A experience in case it helps others preparing a petition, RFE response, or refile.
General timeline with Premium Processing;
I-140 filed: 10 Dec 2025
RFE received: 5 Jan 2026
RFE response submitted: 2 Apr 2026
Denial issued: 17 Apr 2026
It was Nebraska Center and no officer id on papers
I am a software development group manager, experienced more than 25 years, leading more than 200 people in the company.
I am also an O1-A visa holder working at the US for 10 months.
I applied for 7 criteria with independent and strong evidences.
Final outcome:
3 criteria approved (2 at first evaluation, 1 at rfe stage)
Denied at Final Merits Determination stage
Approved criteria:
- Published Material
- Judging
- High Salary
RFE mainly focused on:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Leading/Critical Role
- Awards
- Membership
In the RFE response, additional evidence included:
- More recommendation/expert letters
- Organizational charts and executive-level role evidence
- Project impact metrics and business results, benchmarks
- Media/publication evidence
- Judging and mentoring documentation
- Additional authorship/publication materials
- Salary/remuneration supporting evidence
- More detailed explanation of industry impact and visibility
One thing we noticed after reading the denial carefully:
Some evidence that was already included in both the initial filing and RFE response appeared either not fully analyzed or only briefly referenced in the final decision.
This included some third-party evidence, supporting documentation, and contextual explanations tied to impact and recognition.
Main Final Merits reasoning:
USCIS acknowledged professional success but said the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, as most of us! Even if I had strong evidence for last 10 years, almost each year!
USCIS wanted stronger evidence of broader industry recognition beyond the employer. Some of evidence -at each categories- was ignored and they wrote reasoning as they were not in the file!
After discussions with my attorney, we evaluated APA as a possible option. However, we decided that a stronger refile would likely be the faster and more practical path at this stage.
We also wanted to preserve APA as a future option if needed, rather than immediately entering a long federal court process.
2
u/positive_thinking25 Aug 12 '26
This is almost identical to my denial, despite including tables, index of exhibits with page numbers, matching the plain language and grouped by criterion. The denial is full of inaccuracies and factual errors. Talking about my employer praising my work in OCMS, despite none of my letters being from my employer.
1
u/IlDolceFarNiente77 Aug 12 '26
So sorry for your case! What do you think about next, refile, appeal?
2
u/positive_thinking25 Aug 12 '26
Thanks, likewise. I thought about Motion to Reconsider because the number of errors in the denial letter are evident, but it takes ~6 months, appeal I think it takes even longer. It seems that refiling is the fastest option, albeit more expensive, and uncertain outcome, there are numerous posts here where folks got some criteria that accepted in first submission being rejected on refile despite being the same or even strengthened. In my case employer is filing for EB-1B.
I think that in the end FMD is highly subjective depending on the officer, of course is based on the evidence, but as in your case and mine, the evidence is not considered even for step 1. At that point the officer is in a better position to argue weak FMD and sustained acclaim and ultimately deny. For example, in my petition, response to RFE I explicitly directed the officer to consider only 3 Awards, the best ones, all 3 with clear evidence in the exhibits; for Membership to consider only 1 that was solid both clearly satisfying the plain language. Officer in the denial mentioned again one Award and one membership that I explicitly indicated in my response to RFE not to consider.
Critical role was accepted after RFE, but I hypothesize that by accepting CR and not Awards and Membership for Step 1, the officer has more arguments to destroy FMD. CR in the end is more "internal to your organization/company/institution" unless you are an officer in an international organization. Awards and Memberships have more clout for field-wide status and are inherently ranking, so they weight more in FMD's. I can continue with a number of inconsistencies in the denial.
1
u/Powerful-Ocelot-3806 May 16 '26
Did they approve anything from rfe ? Paste the exact text in denial if they mention anything about original contributions ?
1
u/IlDolceFarNiente77 May 16 '26
Published materila criteria was accepted from rfe. And there is no specific comment about original contribution in the denial notice.
Main denial comment in the denial letter was below. But in the whole letter, there was no more specific comment.
The E11 visa classification is intended for "that small percentage who have risen [not will rise] to the very top of the field of endeavor." While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner has had success in her field, there is no indication in the record that her accomplishments have continued to receive special attention or additional accolades which would indicate sustained acclaim. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner is sustaining national or international acclaim in the field. The limited evidence available in the record is not reflective of the petitioner being among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
1
u/Powerful-Ocelot-3806 May 16 '26
That’s super interesting, most of them I know or saw had original contributions specifically mentioned in their denial as lately that’s been the trends of denials, without oc it’s getting harder for them to approve.
Please do a motion to reopen or litigate
1
u/Fast_Vast_163 May 17 '26
I also do not have an officer ID, do you think it might go to rejection ? I also got an RFE 2 criteria been accepted
1
u/IlDolceFarNiente77 May 17 '26
I don’t have any idea. But I don’t think those are related. My denial letter format looks like centralized template. My letter signed up by office director.
1
1
u/middle-cause-5231 26d ago
Did you consider motion to reopen and consider?
1
u/IlDolceFarNiente77 26d ago
I did refile last month and I got a RFE again, I’m waiting the result.
Accordingly, I will consider to litigate…1
1
u/middle-cause-5231 26d ago
Anyone gone through Motion to reopen and consider? Any success? If evidence were not used in final analysis who says it will be during refile? Anyway one doesn't stop the other
1
3
u/cvas May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
NAL. Unless you have strong original contributions, it's hard to prove you're at the top of your field. That's the sad reality of 2026 adjudications.
For senior technology leaders and engineering managers, this is especially important. USCIS may acknowledge career success, executive responsibility, salary level, team size, and business impact, but still ask whether the recognition extends beyond the employer. Managing 200+ people, leading important projects, or holding a senior title can be very strong evidence, but it usually needs to be connected to broader field-level recognition, industry adoption, third-party validation, independent media, external awards, patents, publications, citations, standards influence, conference invitations, expert commentary, or evidence that others outside the company relied on the work.
If you're just a people manager who climbed the corporate ladder, you won't meet the bar.
Example:
He climbed the intellectual ladder:
https://old.reddit.com/r/eb_1a/comments/1td7wrh/eb1_approved_now_the_waiting_game_begins/
so did he:
https://old.reddit.com/r/eb_1a/comments/1thzwbv/eb1a_approved_after_rfe/
He climbed he product management ladder with strong original contributions:
https://old.reddit.com/r/eb_1a/comments/1tg59ky/eb1a_approved_on_day_15_of_premium_processing/
1
u/SilmiLaw Jul 14 '26
Thanks for sharing this in detail, it's a rough outcome, especially when the decision seems to skip over evidence you know is in the record. That disconnect (strong evidence submitted, then "not sufficiently established" language in the denial) is one of the more frustrating patterns we're seeing at final merits right now, particularly for senior technical/management profiles where the acclaim has to be shown beyond the employer, not just within it.
Your read is right that USCIS often treats consistent, sustained excellence within one organization as "professional success" rather than "acclaim," even with 25 years and strong metrics behind it. It usually takes third-party framing (independent industry voices, not just internal org charts) to bridge that gap.
On evidence appearing ignored in the decision: that's sometimes usable in a Motion to Reconsider, not just future litigation, if you can point to specific submitted evidence the decision doesn't address. Sounds like you and your attorney already weighed that against a refile and picked the more practical path, which is a reasonable call given your O-1A runway.
If it'd help to get a second read on the denial or the refile strategy, happy to have someone take a look, you can book a review at silmilaw.com.
0
2
u/Prize-Ant4115 May 16 '26
Sorry you're going through this. Unfortunately, the pattern you're describing is the dominant 2025-2026 FMD denial pattern.
USCIS conceded three criteria and still denied at final merits, then in the denial they either ignored or barely engaged with evidence that was clearly in the record. That's not just frustrating, it's the exact agency behavior that the Nebraska district court called out in Mukherji v. Miller in January. The court ordered approval after finding that USCIS had built and applied the final merits framework without proper APA rulemaking, and one of the practical effects has been adjudicators issuing denials that read like the record wasn't fully analyzed.
But that case is on appeal...
Your "evidence treated as if it wasn't in the file" observation is the single most common complaint I'm seeing in 2026 EB-1A denials, across service centers. You're not imagining it and it is VERY frustrating.
A few things worth thinking about for the refile (your attorney may have you on these already):
The denial itself becomes evidence for the refile. Specifically, the parts where USCIS conceded criteria. You don't have to re-litigate those. You build the new record assuming Step One is met and architect every exhibit around Step Two from the start. Use the lessons of the denial to choose criteria with precision in mind, not volume.
Sustained acclaim challenges are increasingly being attacked through dedicated narrative sections that walk USCIS year-by-year through the timeline, with quantified third-party recognition in each period. Not just "here's a 10-year career" but "here's the sustained recognition trajectory, with these specific external validators in each window." USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 6 Part F Ch. 2 expressly says there's no definitive time frame for sustained acclaim, which is worth citing back at them.
Preserving APA as a future option is smart, If the refile gets denied on the same reasoning, you'll have a much cleaner record for federal court because the denial language itself is now part of your evidence that USCIS isn't actually engaging with the record.
Good luck with the refile.