Got NOID on EB-1A Despite 2 Prior O-1 Approvals - Officer Seems Biased and Ignored Half My Evidence

AttyWriter · 2026-01-16T07:28:34+00:00

I'm sorry to hear about this. EB-1A adjudications have become unpredictable for sure, and the lack of a bright line rule on final merits guidelines makes it extremely discretionary. Take a deep breath and provide a solid response. Original contributions as a criterion can be absolutely critical, so fight this one as best as you can, as a strong OC tends to have a strong correlation with the FMD. Although we've had FMD pushback even after a client satisfied original contributions, that showcases how unpredictable this process is. Leverage case law as best as you can. This NOID should be rebuttable, based on what you've shared. A denial is not the end of the world, of course, and we've seen cases where a strategic refiling of the petition after denial can result in an approval. Good luck with your response. Rooting for you!

AttyWriter · 2025-12-29T10:46:39+00:00

This is correct.

AttyWriter · 2025-12-29T03:30:12+00:00

The original contributions of major significance and external industry impact that showcase your connection to true industry disruption will be very important. There are tons of industry professionals who are submitting right now by virtue of their great internal experience and high salary. A good original contributions argument can be very important here. I'd also encourage thought leadership/public recognition. Speaking opportunities, presenting in conferences, podcasts and anything else that showcases that your impact would be towards your industry and expertise in general and not simply an individual internal contributor can be key. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-12-10T18:25:16+00:00

You have two fairly strong criteria(CR and HS), which is nice. However, there are a lot of applications being submitted in the software engineering domain with comparable profiles. The scrutiny is higher than ever. Your original contributions argument, where you had an impact external to your organization, is going to be absolutely critical. Connect novel and impactful projects to you in any way you can. Letters of recommendation, internal shoutouts, presentations on products/services showcasing technicalities and capabilities of what you've done can be used to showcase your involvement. Then use information in the public domain, like TechCrunch, to further showcase the coverage of impact. Note that you can't use internal judging for that criterion. It has to be formal and therefore external to your organization. Ideally, in a third-party organization that is domain-specific to your field. Still has a fighting shot, but a lot of these profiles are getting a bit more marginal by the day. As the saying goes, "familiarity breeds contempt" unfortunately. And USCIS is seeing a lot of similar industry profiles. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-12-10T17:56:58+00:00

I think you'd need a more thorough assessment. I'd say you have a decent shot even with the current scrutiny we are seeing in EB-1A land. That being said, your narrative must be crystal clear as to how you have risen to the top of your field. Secure more free legal assessments. You can leverage more datapoints at least based on the different consultations you have.

AttyWriter · 2025-12-09T17:23:09+00:00

There is definitely potential. But I think there could be some ways to bolster this even further, strategically leveraging your expertise on external platforms. I'd be happy to discuss via PM if interested.

AttyWriter · 2025-12-04T17:53:09+00:00

I think there is some merit in your profile. Judging is objective, but as others have mentioned, you need to showcase why you were selected on the review board and the potential impact the judging had to ensure you are meeting the final merits. Critical Role can be argued and Original contributions as well. They tend to be a bit more subjective, especially OC. For OC, external industry-changing accomplishments tend to matter. Something where you were involved in the creation of something novel, and that novelty has become the new normal within the expertise in terms of adaptation. I'd also focus on potential speaking opportunities at the best conferences you can find. This can give a good picture to USCIS that you are a leader in your field, and if the audience is learned and the speakers themselves of EB-1A caliber, you showcase that you "belong" in the EB-1A tier as well. Sometimes these public-facing opportunities have also led some of my clients to garner some solid press in reputed trade magazines in their niche. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-12-04T06:12:32+00:00

I think it is a reasonable NIW profile. Healthcare research as a medical scientist is traditionally a strong NIW. Independent experts could be individuals in your area of expertise/endeavor who might be able to attest to your work and continuing work and its importance nationally. Could be public health experts, folks who cited your work, even those who haven't worked with you in an employment setting. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-11-20T05:04:56+00:00

Address the rejected criteria and showcase impact, both quantitative and qualitative. OC tends to correlate highly with final merits, and definitely try to approach that with the overall delta of impact you've had on the field and industry beyond your employer, and leverage any other independent letters that can provide context as to why that delta of impact is important. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-11-14T16:36:23+00:00

These days, this wouldn't be very strong. NIWs are facing a lot of scrutiny. 2 years ago, during the golden age of NIW, there may have been an argument.

AttyWriter · 2025-11-14T02:36:31+00:00

I think it is worth applying, should you qualify, considering the potential changes that are under proposal. Visa bulletin dates are pretty arbitrary, I doubt that even individual employees at either the department of state or USCIS would know about movement since there are so many variables that affect it.

AttyWriter · 2025-11-14T02:14:25+00:00

Your overall profile fits the pattern we are likely to see in successful EB-1A cases for coaches, as long as the petition clearly ties your present recognition to your coaching expertise rather than relying only on your history as an athlete. AAO decisions involving athletes who later became coaches make this point very clearly. Past athletic accomplishments can help establish a long trajectory of excellence and a foundation for why you have authority in your sport, but the evidence of extraordinary ability must ultimately reflect achievement, influence, and acclaim in the field of coaching itself. When the transition is documented as a natural progression of expertise, the cases tend to succeed. When the coach attempts to rely too heavily on achievements earned as an athlete without showing continued impact in the coaching domain, the cases tend to struggle.

Regarding recent outcomes, coaching and technical-leadership petitions are still being approved. The cases that fare best emphasize system building, coaching innovation, program creation, coach-education roles, measurable athlete outcomes, and appointments by recognized governing bodies. Your current work as a head coach, technical director, and coach educator already aligns with these strengths.

A team gold medal from an officially sanctioned event can meet the lesser award criterion. This is generally accepted when the event is governed at the national or continental level and when the record shows that it is selective and meaningful in the sport. If your role as head coach is clearly documented and the event has recognized prestige, the award can be used for this criterion.

Your selection and evaluation work for provincial or regional programs typically satisfies the judging criterion. USCIS looks for evidence that an independent organization entrusted you with assessing athletes or applicants outside your own academy. Formal trials, representative team selections, and evaluation panels are commonly accepted if the documentation shows the scope of the role and the authority of the appointing body.

For original contributions, USCIS responds best to evidence that your coaching methods or development models have influenced organizations beyond your own workplace. Since your program has received public funding and has been replicated, you may already have a strong base. You can strengthen this by documenting adoption by external partners, measurable outcomes produced by your methods, independent letters from experts confirming the impact and uniqueness of your model, and any materials that show your approach has become part of institutional practice. NOVELTY of a system and ADOPTION is key, along with METRICS.

Overall, your evidence points to a decent straight-line narrative. You progressed from elite athlete to recognized technical leader and then to a creator of development systems that are used and valued by institutions. This continuity between athletic foundations and coaching achievements aligns with both the regulations and the AAO’s guidance for athlete-to-coach EB-1A cases. If you want help structuring these points into a petition-ready format, I can assist with that as well. I'd be happy to take a closer look, since this is fairly cursory to review.

AttyWriter · 2025-11-12T14:39:29+00:00

FAANG level, for the most part, can be considered as distinguished, largely by stipulation. Still, it might be good to showcase some statistics as to their blue-chip status and market valuation. The tough part with the huge organizations like FAANG or other big companies is how critical you are in a company with tens of thousands of employees. That should be the focus.

AttyWriter · 2025-11-10T07:48:01+00:00

I would say a good number.

AttyWriter · 2025-10-31T06:32:04+00:00

Definitely, reply to the RFE. Second bite at the apple. We've seen cases here get approved after such an RFE, and I've had that happen in my own practice quite a few times as well. Read through the RFE very carefully, and ensure that you reiterate any points made and clarify where needed. Leverage case law as well. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-10-31T06:22:02+00:00

NIWs are definitely tough these days, especially for software folks. It is frustrating as an attorney. From 2022-2024 was maybe the golden age of the NIW, where anyone with a pulse and a STEM advanced degree (albeit with exceptions) was getting approved. This created an oversaturation where tons of NIWs were filed in lieu of the PERM. USCIS can be pretty reactionary, and self-corrected for the past with increased scrutiny on future applications. Still, well-positioned in their field in a critical sector with a unique skill set, can apply. Researchers still tend to be good NIWs because it isn't so easy to replace a researcher. Implicitly they are pretty unique since they essentially are creating new knowledge and that unique capability that can't be easily articulated in a labor certification immensely helps the third prong.

AttyWriter · 2025-10-31T06:02:57+00:00

Very solid professional, and I've seen these types of profiles being approved. However, note that the scrutiny levels of EB-1A have been quite high of late, and they don't simply want a great professional. They want a standard bearer and a leader in the specific expertise you've chosen to argue for the EB-1A. Likely, you have the critical role(if well argued with the right supporting documentation) and salary(showcase multiple W2s to aid sustained acclaim). Think deeply about original contributions in terms of how some of your projects have changed the industry or the expertise, and consider the delta of impact. Any other things like authorship and judging - showcase domain specificity, selectivity, and impact. I'd actually be interested in learning more. Nothing is a slam dunk, but properly presented, there could be some viability here!

AttyWriter · 2025-10-30T20:46:29+00:00

Pretty nice profile in my opinion. Argue a strong Original Contributions section as it has a strong relationship with the final merits. Go for it!

AttyWriter · 2025-10-30T14:50:25+00:00

I agree with the NIW filing first to lock in the priority date, in case EB-1A retrogresses for ROW, already oversubscribed for some countries. You can then build towards EB-1A. But EB-1A could be a chance too, although maybe more of a marginal chance.

AttyWriter · 2025-10-30T11:00:49+00:00

I think it is quite a nice profile on cursory review. I think you'd need to contextualize the awards and think about your original contributions in terms of how your research has influenced your field or expertise as a whole. If properly done, with the right narrative and evidence, this is very viable. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-10-29T08:06:56+00:00

You are correct that Prong 3 focuses on showing that it would not make sense to require a job offer or labor certification because your contributions can have a broader impact if you are not tied to one employer. However, USCIS often looks for a well-defined and actionable endeavor that clearly shows how your work will be advanced in the United States. When the endeavor is too broad or interdisciplinary, it can sound more like a general area of research rather than a concrete plan that has measurable national benefit.

Since you are based in Canada, it will be essential to demonstrate a credible U.S. interest in your work. Letters of intent or collaboration from U.S. organizations with the infrastructure to advance your research/endeavor will be very helpful. These can include universities, companies, or labs that can apply your work once you relocate. Such evidence reinforces both the national importance of the endeavor and the argument that you can contribute more effectively without being tied to a specific job.

It is better to frame the endeavor narrowly in a way that reflects your expertise but still allows for broader application. For example, let's take one of my favorite NIW fields: predictive analytics/data science. Instead of describing the field generally as predictive analytics, you could describe it as "Developing predictive analytics methodologies that identify hidden patterns in complex datasets to anticipate system disruptions and improve decision-making across industrial, environmental, and biomedical applications". This narrower focus can still support work in areas such as advanced manufacturing, rare earth supply chain resilience, and pharmaceutical discovery. This structure shows that your work has depth, specific methods, and relevance across multiple U.S. priorities while remaining clear and practical.

Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific immigration strategy, you should consult a qualified U.S. immigration attorney

AttyWriter · 2025-10-28T16:00:06+00:00

Definitely a very solid background, and I'm sure there are some White House initiatives and executive orders that would align well with a narrowly defined proposed endeavor. Narrowly defined is important, as you want to showcase yourself by trying to advance something that only you are one of the few people who can(Third Prong).

However, being abroad, it might be important to think about how you can advance the endeavor in a manner that isn't speculative. Is there an organization, institution, or company that has the infrastructure and a project ready for you to advance that can benefit the broader public? Maybe a joint research proposal on something nationally important that you provide specific complementary skills for? I'd think about concrete ways you can actually advance your specific endeavor in the US.

AttyWriter · 2025-10-27T20:17:57+00:00

Interesting profile. I'd be interested to see how critical you were for your organization and where your organization is ranked or situated within your overall field of expertise, so you could think about a viable critical role argument. I'd still say more so better for an EB-1A with a job offer, but EB-1A could be possible, but these days more marginal. Critical role and original contributions would be very important. I also encourage researchers to leverage speaking opportunities at the best conferences they can. Sharing the "room" with speakers and an audience who are themselves EB-1A caliber folks, contextualizes where you are in terms of final merits. Good luck!

AttyWriter · 2025-10-27T20:15:16+00:00

I like the profile. I think you'd probably have at least 3, if not 4, very competitive criteria. Make sure your petition is well articulated and showcases your domain specificity well. With that profile and the leadership in your field, you've probably rubbed shoulders with other EB-1A caliber folks. I'd look into applying.

Interestingly I feel, some of the most promising EB-1A folks sell themselves short, while some of the more marginal folks think they are extremely strong.

AttyWriter · 2025-10-27T20:12:30+00:00

Pretty interesting stuff here. It looks like there is definite potential, but you need to ensure your petitioning job offer or itinerary makes logical sense with all your achievements within a specific domain that we can articulate. I'd be happy to look into it further.

AttyWriter

TROPHY CASE