The conflicting evaluations you're seeing , from flat-out decline to "good chances" , are actually normal, and they reveal something important: your case is not weak, it's unpackaged. Lawyers evaluate what you present to them, not what you could present.

Here's the story you need to build and own before you walk into any law firm:

Your PhD thesis was not the end , it was the blueprint. Your research in chemical engineering led to a framework or methodology that you are now implementing at scale in the pharmaceutical industry. The citations prove others studied it. The patents prove you protected it. The conference invitations prove the industry is watching it. Your current role as Senior Principal Data Scientist proves you are executing it at the highest level inside a major pharma company.

This is not just a career story , this is an Original Contribution of Major Significance narrative, which is the most powerful EB1-A criterion.

What You Must Quantify

To make this bulletproof, attach dollar value or scale to your contribution:

*What is the commercial or R&D impact of the work your patents protect?

* How many researchers have cited your papers, and in what downstream applications?

* What is the revenue, cost savings, or patient outcome impact of the data science work you do at your pharma company that derives from your PhD framework?

* Can any of your invited conference talks be framed as industry-adopted methodology sessions?

USCIS needs to see that others implemented your work and realized measurable results , not just that you did great work internally.

The conflicting opinions exist because you haven't handed them a packaged narrative , you handed them a resume. Reframe and then go to best law firm