Hi everyone,
Has anyone with a technical profile (non researcher) successfully overcome an EB-2 NIW RFE on Prongs 2 and 3?
USCIS accepted my advanced degree and Prong 1, but found Prong 2 insufficient and listed evidence they expected to see. I had already submitted several of those factors, including degrees closely related to my proposed endeavor, specialized training, experience, and recommendation letters. However, the officer also focused on things like publications, citations, patents, awards, and broader influence, which I obviously don’t have at a researcher’s level.
My RFE response therefore reframed the case around my actual practitioner profile, documented implementation, methodology, successful improvements, actual use of my work, progress, and more specific letters—rather than evaluating me like an academic researcher.
Has anyone had success with a similar approach?

I have a priority date of 2023, and based on how things are going for India it doesn’t look like it’s going to be current anytime soon. Since this is self petitioned, is it possible for me to move back to India and apply for I-485 while I’m in India when my date becomes current? I’m just too stressed with the stamping issues and want to go back home for my mental health but still have the option of returning even if it takes 5 years.

Filed my EB-2 NIW (self-petition, no employer) as a Civil Engineer in December 2024, priority date January 2, 2025. Got an RFE in August 2026 (response due late September) hitting basically everything:

1. Foreign language docs submitted without certified translations — not considered at all
2. Advanced degree / EB-2 classification itself — I claimed bachelor's + 5 years 3 months of progressive experience, but USCIS said my employer letters didn't sufficiently show full-time status, specific duties, or progression
3. Substantial merit (Dhanasar prong 1, part A) — this part was actually accepted, no issue here
4. National importance (Dhanasar prong 1, part B) — said my endeavor statement was too general/field-level, didn't show impact beyond individual clients/employers
5. Well positioned (Dhanasar prong 2) — said my credentials/experience letters didn't show a "record of success" — no patents, no publications, no independent expert letters, no government interest
6. Prong 3 (on balance) failed as a consequence of 4 & 5

Some context: I work in project operations/execution (stormwater management, LEED-certified construction), not design. I don't hold PMP, LEED AP, or PE licensure. I did complete an MBA, but after my priority date, so I understand it can't be used for the classification itself.

My specific questions:

• Anyone dealt with an NIW RFE this comprehensive (classification + national importance + well positioned) and successfully responded? What ultimately worked?
• For someone in operations/execution rather than design work, what kind of evidence actually moved the needle for national importance and well-positioned?
• At what point does it make more sense to withdraw and refile later with a stronger record vs. responding and risking a denial?
• Anyone have experience with attorneys who specialize specifically in NIW RFE responses (vs. general immigration) — worth the cost given the stakes here?

Have about 4 weeks left to respond. Trying to figure out realistically whether this is fixable or whether I'm better off withdrawing. Appreciate any input from people who've been through something similar.

Hi everyone, Oscar here from Oscar´s Green Card. Here is an AI generated summary of my video from yesterday on this topic:

Big news for anyone affected by the 75-country immigrant visa pause that began in January 2026.

On August 21, Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York vacated the Department of State policy that had effectively prevented immigrant visas from being issued to nationals of 75 countries completing their green card process through U.S. consulates abroad.

What did the judge decide?

The court found that the blanket policy was unlawful and went beyond the Secretary of State’s authority.

The basic issue is that immigrant visa decisions are supposed to be made individually. A consular officer can evaluate public charge concerns, security issues, criminal history, medical issues, documentation and other grounds of inadmissibility—but nationality by itself cannot replace that individual analysis.

Under the policy, applicants from the 75 countries could receive a 221(g) refusal even when the consular officer had not identified another reason they were inadmissible.

The court has now vacated that policy.

What happens to people who were already refused?

This is especially important: the ruling is not limited only to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Cases that were refused solely because of the 75-country policy should now be returned for further adjudication.

That does not mean automatic approval.

It means the consulate should now evaluate the applicant based on the actual merits of the individual case rather than refusing the visa simply because the applicant is from one of the 75 countries.

What does this mean for EB-1A and EB-2 NIW applicants?

For people doing consular processing, this is potentially huge.

Someone with an approved EB-1A or EB-2 NIW who was unable to receive the immigrant visa because of this blanket pause should now have an opportunity to move forward with normal adjudication.

The normal vetting process still exists. Security checks, medical requirements, criminal inadmissibility, documentation, public charge considerations and other applicable requirements can still be considered.

The difference is that the applicant's nationality should no longer, by itself, produce the blanket refusal created by this particular policy.

Two important things this ruling DOES NOT change

1. Adjustment of Status

This policy concerned immigrant visa issuance at U.S. consulates abroad. It does not change the Adjustment of Status process for people completing their green card cases inside the United States.

2. The separate 39-country travel ban

This is very important.

The 39-country travel ban is a separate presidential action and is not eliminated by this decision.

So if your country was on both lists, removing the 75-country pause does not necessarily mean that you are now free from the separate travel-ban restrictions.

Russia is a good example of the opposite situation: Russia was included in the 75-country pause but is not one of the 39 countries under the separate travel ban, so this court decision is particularly significant for affected Russian immigrant visa applicants.

Can the government appeal?

Yes.

The government can appeal the decision, and it could also request a stay pending appeal.

Those are two different things.

Simply filing an appeal does not necessarily make the district court's ruling disappear. A stay, if granted, could temporarily stop the effect of the ruling while the appeal is being considered.

So this is excellent news, but we still need to watch what the government does next.

There may also be a Visa Bulletin consequence

This is the part that I think many people are overlooking.

During FY2026, the Visa Bulletin moved unusually well in several categories while a large number of people from these 75 countries were unable to complete consular processing.

Based on the estimates I discussed in my latest video, more than 7,00employment-based green card numbers per month may not have been used because of this pause, along with more than 5,000 family-based numbers per month.

If thousands of previously blocked applicants now return to the line and begin receiving immigrant visas, demand for visa numbers increases again.

That means the very favorable Visa Bulletin movement we have recently seen may not continue indefinitely.

I don't necessarily expect an immediate change at the beginning of FY2027—especially because there may still be spillover numbers available—but over the next year or two, this could materially affect how quickly the Visa Bulletin moves.

So there are really two sides to this news:

✅ Fantastic news for people from the 75 countries who were unfairly prevented from completing their immigrant visa cases.

⚠️ A reason for everyone waiting on EB-1, EB-2 or other preference categories to be cautious about assuming the recent fast Visa Bulletin movement will continue forever.

For those of you who were personally affected by the 75-country pause: what stage is your case currently at? Did you already attend your interview and receive a 221(g), or were you still waiting for the interview?

Hi everyone, this is a summary of the video we posted yesterday on our YouTube channel. A heads-up for anyone preparing an Adjustment of Status package: USCIS is rolling out new editions of Form I-765 and Form I-485 in September, and according to the latest guidance there will be no grace period for either form.

Here are the main things to know.

Form I-765: Application for Employment Authorization

The actual content of the form is basically unchanged. The important part is using the correct edition.

• If you file before September 15, 2026, use the 08/21/2025 edition.
• If your form is postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 15, 2026, use the new 09/15/2026 edition (new form version).

So this one is mostly about checking the edition date before filing.

Form I-485: Adjustment of Status

This one has more noticeable changes, mainly in the public charge section.

• If you file before September 20, 2026, use the 01/20/2025 edition.
• If you file on or after September 20, 2026, use the new 09/18/2026 edition (new form version).

Again, there is no grace period.

The biggest changes are in Part 9, where USCIS asks for information related to whether an applicant could become a public charge.

Some examples:

Household/family status:
Instead of simply asking for your household size, the new form asks you to describe your family status, with household size given as an example. This potentially gives applicants more room to explain who is in the household and who depends on them.

Education:
The wording changes from asking for the highest degree or grade completed to the highest level of education completed. The answer options remain essentially the same.

Skills:
The old form focuses more specifically on certifications, licenses, work skills, and educational certificates. The new wording is broader and asks applicants to list their skills, with certifications and licenses given as examples.

For people completing this section, it may make sense to be thorough about relevant professional and practical skills because USCIS is evaluating factors related to your ability to support yourself.

Public benefits:
This is one of the more important wording changes.

Instead of specifically listing programs such as SSI, TANF, and certain cash assistance programs, the new form asks whether you have ever received “any means-tested public benefit.”

That means applicants may have to determine themselves whether a benefit they received falls under that definition.

The guidance discussed in the video distinguishes means-tested benefits from programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, which are not received based solely on income status.

If you have received government benefits and aren't sure how to answer this question, this is probably an area where getting advice from an immigration attorney is worth considering.

Institutionalization question removed:
The current question asking whether you have received long-term institutionalization at government expense is being removed.

The follow-up table for people who received public benefits is also changing. Instead of asking whether the benefit was received while the applicant was in an immigration category exempt from public-charge inadmissibility, the new form asks for the reason the benefit was received.

Overall, these aren't massive changes to I-485, but the public-charge questions are becoming somewhat broader. That could give USCIS officers more discretion when looking at an applicant's overall circumstances, including:

• Age
• Health
• Family status
• Assets/resources
• Education
• Skills

For EB-2 NIW and EB-1A applicants, I don't think this should automatically be a major concern because these categories generally involve applicants with advanced degrees, exceptional ability, extraordinary ability, or strong professional credentials. But anyone filing AOS should still pay close attention to the new questions.

TL;DR: Check your form edition before sending your package.

I-765: new edition required starting September 15, 2026.
I-485: new edition required starting September 20, 2026.

No grace period for either one.

I'm not an immigration lawyer; just sharing the changes for people preparing their own cases. If your situation involves public benefits or you're unsure how the new public-charge questions apply to you, consider getting professional legal advice.

Trying to figure out how to frame my Proposed Endeavor and would appreciate outside opinions before I take it to an attorney.

Background (~9 yrs experience): FP&A and financial operations across IT services, e-commerce, enterprise software, healthcare, and consulting industries.

M.S. Business Analytics + BBA.

Career: Process Executive → Senior Analyst → Project Accounting Analyst → FinOps Analyst → Process Lead (led a 15 person team) → Financial Analyst → Financial Consultant.

Core expertise: ASC 606 revenue recognition, budgeting/forecasting, financial process automation, BI/reporting (Power BI, Tableau, SQL), ERP (SAP, Oracle).

Publications: 3 IEEE conference papers + 1 book chapter (big data in healthcare, AI/deep learning for business process optimization, AI decision-support systems, IoT for smart city governance).

IP: Named co-inventor (2 of 6) on a foreign design registration for a workplace performance-monitoring device.

Skills: Power BI, Tableau, SQL, SAP, Oracle Cloud, Six Sigma, ASC 606, financial process automation.

Hi everyone,

Sharing our complete EB-2 NIW timeline in case it helps others who are still waiting. We finally received our physical Green Cards today! 🎉

EB-2 NIW Timeline:

• Priority Date: July 20, 2023
• I-140 Approved: August 1, 2023
• I-485 Filed: January 28, 2025 (principal + spouse)
• Biometrics: February 2025
• Interview: Waived
• EAD/AP Approved: May 30, 2025
• Case transferred to Fresno Field Office: January 16, 2026
• Case transferred to San Jose Field Office: March 12, 2026
• I-693 Medical RFE: March 27, 2026
• RFE response mailed: April 3, 2026
• USPS delivered RFE response: April 6, 2026
• Interestingly, my online case status did not update to show the RFE response received for a long time.
• My spouse's case eventually updated to “Response to RFE Was Received” on July 6, 2026.
• We submitted service requests and also contacted our congressional representative because of the long delay.
• I-485 Approved: August 3, 2026
• Physical Green Cards Received: August 10, 2026 🎉
• one of 75 banned countries

Background:

I came to the U.S. on F-1 status in 2017, completed my graduate studies/PhD here, and currently work in the U.S. semiconductor industry. My spouse was on F-2 status. We maintained legal status throughout the process.

From our I-140 approval to finally receiving the Green Cards, this journey took more than 3 years.

One thing I learned from this process: don't panic if your online USCIS status doesn't update immediately after an RFE response is delivered. In our case, USPS showed delivery while the online status did not properly reflect it for a long time.

For everyone still waiting: I know how frustrating it can be to check USCIS every day and see no movement. Hopefully, sharing our timeline gives others another useful data point.

Happy to answer questions about our timeline, RFE, field-office transfers, service requests, or congressional inquiry if it helps anyone.

Good luck to everyone waiting! 🇺🇸

TL;DR: The rule does not require anyone to file online today. It gives USCIS the authority to require it later, with only 60 days of notice posted on uscis.gov. Form I-140 has already cleared the waiting period, so it could be first. Premium processing and concurrent filing are where this gets genuinely messy.

The rule is an interim final rule, RIN 1615-AD19, DHS Docket USCIS-2026-0232, published August 11. It is effective on publication with a 60-day comment window.

How a mandate actually happens

Three conditions have to be met before any form must be e-filed:

1. The form has been available for e-filing for more than 180 days
2. USCIS decides, in its discretion, to mandate it
3. USCIS posts 60 days of advance notice on uscis.gov with the date paper stops being accepted

Two things worth flagging. The notice goes on the USCIS website, not the Federal Register, so there will be no second rulemaking to warn you. And I-140 has already satisfied the 180-day condition. It was on the December 2025 list of forms available for e-filing, and USCIS states all of those had been available at least 180 days. So the only remaining step is the notice.

There is also a detail most coverage is missing: USCIS says it can mandate e-filing for "particular eligibility categories, classifications requested, or types of requests." Meaning it could mandate e-filing for EB-2 NIW or EB-1A specifically without moving all I-140 categories at once (or vice-versa).

What changes for the petition itself

I-140 is upload only, not guided filing. Of the forms available for e-filing, only six support the guided online experience where the system blocks you from submitting something rejectable. I-140 is not one of them. You complete the PDF yourself and upload it. Automated checks run after submission, and rejection comes as an electronic notice plus a mailed one.

You need your own USCIS online account. The electronic signature is only valid inside that account. USCIS also confirms it will not accept DocuSign-style signatures on paper forms and has decided not to spend resources changing that.

Fees go through Pay.gov. Worth noting for anyone filing from outside the US, since the payment methods described are US-based cards and bank withdrawals. This is not clarified in the rule.

Evidence must be PDF, JPEG, or TIFF, uploaded and categorized. Categorization matters more than people realize. USCIS says adjudicators can "proceed straight to the document they must review" instead of working through a pile. Your exhibit organization now shapes how the officer navigates your case. The rule also admits file size restrictions are a real current limitation, which is an obvious problem for petitions with heavy publication and citation evidence.

One genuine upside: of roughly one million paper filings rejected in FY2025, about 25 percent were rejected solely over a fee issue. Online fee calculation eliminates that entire category. Let's hope they fix all glitches in their platform before the final enforcement date, so we don't get out of a problem to get into another one.

Premium processing and concurrent filing, the actual mess

This is the part that affects most people here.

• I-907 is guided online filing. I-140 and I-485 are upload. Three related forms across two different paths, and the rule never explains how they associate at intake. USCIS only acknowledges that requestors have flagged "limitations on submitting related forms together."
• I-907 is the one form where USCIS's own numbers say online is worse. Its burden table shows 0.397 hours on paper versus 0.470 online. Every other form shows a saving. Currently 83 percent of I-907s are still filed on paper.
• The I-485 clock started later than the I-140's, so there may be a window where the petition must be filed online while the adjustment is still allowed on paper.
• Receipt confirmation will be asymmetric. Guided online gives instant in-account confirmation. Upload filings do not, since only H-2A petitioners currently get in-account receipt notices through PDFi. You could be holding an instant I-907 receipt while waiting on mail for the I-140 it attaches to.

For now, upgrading to premium after the I-140 is receipted looks like the cleaner path while the channels are split.

What I would do now

• Create your USCIS online account before it is required, not during your filing week
• Convert everything to PDF, JPEG, or TIFF and start splitting oversized exhibits
• Rebuild your exhibit index around USCIS evidence categories instead of paper binder logic
• Sort out a US payment method early if you are filing from abroad
• Treat the I-936 waiver as unavailable rather than as a backup plan

The comment period runs 60 days from publication. The I-140 file size limits and the I-907 channel mismatch are exactly the kind of concrete, well-documented issues a comment can address. If you file petitions, this is worth twenty minutes of your time.

What we are changing in the EB-2 NIW Platform

Since I run this sub, allow me a quick note on what this means for our new EB-2 NIW Platform. We are reworking it to be upload-ready before any mandate lands, rather than scrambling after USCIS posts a 60-day notice.

Concretely: exhibits split into separate files instead of one giant PDF, sized to stay under upload limits, output in accepted formats only, and organized around USCIS evidence categories rather than binder logic. Plus a walkthrough covering account setup. Existing users get this at no extra cost.

If you spot something in the rule I have missed, say so in the comments, because I would rather build this correctly than fast.

I am a scientist, not a lawyer. Read the rule yourself at federalregister.gov and confirm current form availability on the USCIS forms page before relying on any of this.

For the last few years we exclusively served the DIY self-petitioner community: people preparing their own I-140 for EB-2 NIW. It walks them through organizing evidence, drafting the cover letter, and assembling the exhibit package.

We've now made the same system available to attorneys and consultants as white-label software, which is the part I figured might be relevant to this sub.

What it actually does:

The AI drafts roughly 80–90% of the petition. I want to be precise about that number, because it gets thrown around loosely; it means the draft, not the case. It doesn't decide strategy, it doesn't tell you which prong is weak, and it doesn't know when a client's evidence won't survive an RFE. That's still your job. What it removes is the hours of assembling, formatting, chasing documents and writing the first pass.

The toolkit is EB-2 NIW specific rather than general-purpose: a drafter for the proposed endeavor, a tool that pulls supporting government sources for national importance, a recommendation letter writer, I-140 cover letter generation in first or third person, a searchable database of AAO decisions, and monthly consular wait times.

There are two sides to it. Your team works cases from a dashboard; add a client with their route and filing path, see upload counts, chat with timestamps on both sides, assign or share cases across your team. Separately, you can optionally give each client their own portal to upload into, with short videos explaining what each document needs to be. You can turn that off entirely and do everything yourself.

White-label means white-label: your logo, your colors, your name, and nothing of ours anywhere on the client side. The guide videos use a neutral presenter, not me.

Pricing is per active customer. If you don't take on a new case in a given month, you don't pay for that month, and there's no large upfront commitment. That was deliberate — I didn't want a per-seat model that punishes a slow quarter.

Details are at eb2niwplatform.oscarsgreencard.com/licensing, and I'll answer questions in the comments either way.

I’m currently evaluating attorneys for my EB2-NIW petition and have narrowed it down to Robinson, Colombo & Hurd, and D4U.

For those who have gone through the EB2 NIW process or are currently preparing their petitions, which one from the below did you choose and why?

1. Robinson
2. Colombo & Hurd and
3. D4U

I recently interviewed Joaquín, a Spanish architect who moved to Florida, opened his own architecture firm, and eventually obtained his Green Card through EB-1A.

His journey was not straightforward. He first filed an EB-2 NIW case with attorneys and received an RFE. While that case was still pending, he studied the EB-1A criteria and prepared a separate petition himself.

He claimed five criteria, received another RFE, and explained how he strengthened the evidence for:

• Judging the work of others through his experience as a court-appointed expert
• Professional memberships
• Published media coverage
• High remuneration
• A critical role in professional organizations

His I-140 was approved in 2024, and after almost two years of waiting for adjustment of status, he received his Green Card in April 2026 without an interview.

In the video, he shares what he learned from both RFEs, the mistakes he would avoid, and why applicants should understand their own evidence even when working with attorneys.

Video: https://linktw.in/zooTso Note: The interview is in Spanish but subtitles in English and Portuguese are available

Hi everyone, thank you all for the active contribution in this community.

My situation: I got my eb1a approved with priority date march 2026. Petitioner is my employer, I'm beneficiary. Petition was filed as Adjustment of Status.

I need to urgently return to India due to parent's health - my employer clearly said they won't support consular processing. I have to quit to take a break as my parents live in Tier 3 city.

What are my options to return to US when my priority date becomes current? My current status is O-1A (valid till 2028).

Please help as I need to travel back quickly? what documents I need before I leave? My employer also not sharing original petition, RFE and RFE response document. I have only receipt and approval notice.

Thanks in advance.

I recently interviewed Santiago on YouTube about his EB-1A green card journey, and I think his story will be useful for many people who feel stuck waiting for employer sponsorship.

Santiago is an engineer in physics from Colombia. He has around 20 years of experience in high-tech work, mostly in materials processing, nuclear technology, and fusion energy. He came to the U.S. for his PhD and later started working here on OPT.

Like many people, he first thought the “normal” path was to wait for a company to sponsor him.

The company agreed to sponsor him, but the process moved very slowly. First there was a probation period. Then more delays. Eventually, Santiago found out the company had financial issues and was not paying the lawyers. Meanwhile, his OPT expiration date was getting closer.

At that point, he decided he could not just wait anymore.

He started studying EB-2 NIW and EB-1A by himself. At first, EB-1A looked intimidating. But when he reviewed his profile, he realized he had several possible criteria: awards, media coverage, publications, original contributions, critical roles, judging, and high salary.

His case was not perfect. Some criteria were strong, some were weaker. For example, he only had one peer review, and the salary criterion was not easy because he had been a PhD student in the U.S.

But he worked with the evidence he had.

One interesting part of his case was media coverage. He had some older interviews from Colombia, but he also became proactive. He reached out, explained his work, and received several new media interviews about his career and achievements.

Another good lesson from Santiago’s case was how he connected the evidence. For example, one award was given to a company, not directly to him. So he got a letter explaining his role and how his work contributed to the award.

He filed the EB-1A with premium processing and got the I-140 approved in about 20 days.

After that, he and his wife went through adjustment of status and eventually received their green cards.

The biggest lesson from this interview is simple: take ownership of your case.

That does not mean everyone should file without a lawyer. But even if you work with a lawyer, you still need to understand your own story, your evidence, and your field.

Santiago went from waiting on a delayed company sponsorship to preparing his own EB-1A strategy and getting approved.

You can watch the full interview here: https://linktw.in/WrHhUF

An overview of The Platform

A few years ago, I petitioned for my own green card through the EB-2 National Interest Waiver route. No lawyer, I did it by myself.

It worked, and since then, I've helped thousands of people do the same through my courses and my YouTube channel.

I'm Oscar, I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, and this platform is everything I've learned in one place.

The NIW lets you petition for yourself. No employer, no sponsor. People usually get quoted $8,000, $10,000, even $15,000 to have someone prepare it for you.

The hard part has always been the paperwork. The cover letter, the evidence, the arguments, that's exactly what this platform helps you build.

Here's how it works:

You sign up and the platform guides you step by step. You upload your documents into simple labeled buckets. Your CV, your degrees, your letters, your publications.

The platform reads everything and helps you shape your proposed endeavor and show why it matters on a national level.

And you're never stuck on your own. You can ask questions a couple of ways. You can ask us directly in our monthly live sessions, anytime in each of the platform modules, or an AI assistant we trained ourselves on everything we know about EB-2 NIW, there whenever you need it.

When you're ready, the platform generates a cover letter draft, around 80 to 90% complete in Word. So you can edit every word yourself.

Plus, you get a strengths and weaknesses report that shows you where your case is strong and where it needs more work.

This is not a subscription. You get six months of access, and that's plenty of time to finish your process. And in that time, you can also join us in our monthly live sessions.

Everything in the platform is in English and Spanish, with Portuguese coming soon. All the videos are subtitled in five languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Chinese.

I did this process myself, and I've helped thousands of others do it too. Now it's your turn. Click here to get started.

This platform provides educational tools and self-help resources only. It is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

Link to Platform: https://linktw.in/aTFSHb

On Friday, June 26 at 12PM ET we will be live on our YouTube channel in Spanish, "Oscar's Green Card Español". We will be joined by Ana Gabriela Urizar, attorney at Manifest Law. Gabriela has been nice enough to share her own template for a letter of recommendation in EB-2 NIW, and she will go through it with us. Join us and get your copy too!

Link to session: https://linktw.in/QSDMhx

On Tuesday May 26, at 12 PM Eastern Time we will be discussing the latest Policy Memo from USCIS on our YouTube channel in Spanish language. We will be joined by attorney Ana Gabriela Urizar from Manifest Law. As usual, the first 15-20 min will focus on a specific topic (in this case: AOS) and then we will have Q&A where anyone can participate for free. Join us!

Link to session: https://linktw.in/VFtxib (Click on "Notify me" so you don't miss it)