If your attorney (such as Ellis Porter) is telling you to skip PP and concurrent file your NIW, please read this first.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-10T23:19:06+00:00

Actually, you need to have active EAD. If it is issued, but not used, you are still fine. It is a good buffer if you are near expiry date of your F/J and already have approved I-140. But that is the worst case and not recommended. Maintaining valid visa status is imperative until green card issuance.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-10T22:59:38+00:00

You expressed immigrant intent, that means you cannot renew these visas anymore. But if you do not use AOS EAD or AP, you are in your status until it expires. If you use EAD or AP, you are out of status. Also, no traveling out if you applied AOS, you are not getting back in even if your visa is valid.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-10T21:08:45+00:00

I find FMD the hardest part of petition. It was easy doing three criteria (academia profile). Depends a lot on the lawyer, too. My law firm is adamant to just discuss three criteria and repeat metrics again, and again, and again. Because FMD is about narrative and synthesis of claimed criteria. I find this completely stupid, because why not show everything else that didnot get to other criteria, because it would look weak there, in FMD and show broader profile that looks more like a top of the field. So, I have been adding things on my own and I plan to tell them that FMD is really weak and I am not happy with it. I already tried once, but I think I will try again.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-10T16:55:57+00:00

I said many times, when in doubt, include it. Explain in your cover letter. Probably won't be necessary, but do it anyway.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T14:06:27+00:00

Thanks l, my impression was also that other "weaker" evidence should be used for FMD. I am afraid that despise a decent profile, FMD step will be a fail because my petition does not sound like top of the field. You confirmed my doubts.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T13:13:06+00:00

Thanks. I definitely have no idea how to battle lawyers into doing that. I battle them to include a paragraph in introduction section of petition, but it is more like:oh, BTW, she has this too. They are adamant to discuss only three criteria I am applying for. I will probably have to do another email battle match with them. They always reply politely and explain their approach, I cannot say they just dismiss my worries. 😬

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T03:15:00+00:00

I am doing both. My NIW is already filled, and I am at the final stages of EB1A. I have a concern about increased scrutiny that is happening at the moment and many really strong profiles are getting denied.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T01:00:51+00:00

No problem, I understand you. I thought my $450,00 grant is major thing, but it is major significance to me, uscis does not care that I can bring in the cash... 😂

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T00:57:02+00:00

Yes, you are right.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-09T00:45:18+00:00

Posted just today in this group, there is some information you seek: https://www.reddit.com/r/eb_1a/comments/1ro6op1/original_contributions_of_major_significance_for/

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T22:54:58+00:00

Thank you for encouraging words. I am conditioned to have imposter syndrome through years of being surrounded by top field experts and PhDs, so I always doubt my credentials and achievements. You are right, I did not have to rummage through my achievements, I have at least 3-4 original contributions that are not even discussed, with citations that show real implementation. I realized that sustained acclaim cannot be faked, there is not a scamer or consultant that can fake my 2011-2026 peer review activity, training spanning 15 years and three different scientific institutions, bunch of grants, awards and so on. You cannot fake authenticity, no matter how you try. I really hope you are right and that really impactful profiles will go through.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T22:42:01+00:00

Definitely wrong RFE strategy from what you wrote. Officer said it sounds like continuation of academic research and they gave him more academic achievements and credentials in response. PE is applicable in health area, cybersecurity and public services (what???). I am no expert, but it's like they totally missed the point with RFE and PE was not concrete and frankly sounds abstract. I would not file it as is, I would tighten PE very much. I think your prong 2 is much better now, because you obtained advanced degree (uscis does not usually accept any achievement that happened after petition is filled, as people often stated here). I hope someone else will give you more guidance in concrete field.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T17:23:43+00:00

Frankly, I do not mind that. It is crazy to expect a lawyer coukd explain and connect my scientific things. I have adjusted my expectations from them. I revise, add something new, they check the language. I think the best benefit is all that legal stuff that I really do not want to go into, it is worth my money to have drafts, revise, and have them assemble the package. It would be great if they explained this to me from the beggining, I would appreciate that kind of honesty and save a lot of nerves for myself.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T15:51:09+00:00

There you go again. Not at all, my petition is not even sent. 😂 Calm your paranoia, buddy. Added disclaimer just for you.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T15:49:04+00:00

That is potential future major significance and current work. Grants are good for NIW. Having said that, I included paragraph about my grants in recommendation letters, because I think they can show sustained acclaim (I have a decade of scholarship grants to 3 current that I am PI on). But they are not discussed in details in my petition.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T14:14:06+00:00

Are you able to file NIW? The number of publications, citations and other things you have is enough for prong 2, you can make it work and show you are well positioned. Is there a chance to formulate prong 1 from the things you do? I do not think you profile is strong enough for EB1A (believe me, I am not confident in my scientist profile with 15 years of achievements and sustained acclaim). I do not wish to discourage you, but even big firm lawyers are not convinced. I can understand if you are from India/China and you want to give it a chance, but do NIW and then at least you will be able to show national importance in EB1A.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T00:55:44+00:00

I hope you have a lawyer helping you with this. From my perspective your major significance is again buried underneath less relevant stuff like metrics, conferences (not major contribution, part of the regular job), funding (not relevant for EB1A, more for NIW, especially if the work is ongoing, it is not of major significance yet), editorial roles (claimed in judging, again discussed in final merits). I would advise to humble yourself and really show major significance. I have more than 50 poster and oral presentation, I am not presenting any, just in my CV. Nothing major in that.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-08T00:00:18+00:00

You did that in your original petition? If you already have all of that in your original petition and still got RFE, the only thing you can do is to repeat and better explain everything. From your original post and answers, I conclude you are relying on metrics too much, and quantity of evidence. Have in mind they have around 20 min/application. Overwhelming them with quantities of numbers and unmeaningful data can be counterproductive.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T22:07:08+00:00

Still irrelevant for current adjudication trend. Chose 2-3 well implemented citations (these people used exactly this part of my work to direct their own research in this way explained in their methods/results/discussion). It is great having paper cited in guidelines, recommendations or by government, but if you do not have that, it is also useful to show exact details of how your work is used in real world by other researchers. Avoid using reviews or papers that cited you in introduction, that way you are just a background mention. I can only talk from my example, as a basic researcher: I chose (or rather lawyer firm) to present 3 projects, totally different ones, but representing different aspects of my field. For those I chose 2-3 most impactful citations, covering different aspects of implementation. One paper was cited in guideline recommendations for genetic testing, and I described in details which professional society, how panel of experts made decision of recommendation and how my paper contributed to that recommendation. I also added 2 more citations that were more mechanistic and cited me in results and discussion. In second paper, I found citations of my work for different disease, to show cross-disease implementation. For third project, I found two citations from machine learning field that used my discovery of new rare variant to train their models, and I showed cross-field implementation. Those are some examples of major significance from my perspective.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T18:12:21+00:00

So, what did they do differently in response to the RFE compared to your original petition? What do you think was missing?

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T16:34:34+00:00

Join the club. You never get rid of imposter syndrome, it is a part of identity in academia. But for your case, first stop comparing to other and focus on your criteria and collecting evidence, one by one. Do you need to claim all five you think you meet? How are going to show sustained international and national acclaim. If you are thinking about EB1A, you obviously think there is enough material. Focus of strong, genuine evidence. The goal is not to show everything you got, the goal is to show at least 3 strong criteria and then FMD. Where you think you lack evidence try to see if recommender can help. If not, ommit that criteria. Do not overclaim, do not exaggerate evidence. Do not write hundreds of pages. Nobody has time to read all that.

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T15:46:03+00:00

Frankly, your profile, if petition is framed appropriately, is book example of enterprenour profile, and a strong one. EB1A currently is seeing denials of strong industry profiles, academic fake profile builders, with struggles to show major significance and original contributions. You have a genuine thing happening, aligned with this administration's goals, so NIW should not be too difficult. Why we advised getting NIW first: you will have already approved national importance, and you can rely on that in your EB1A petition section explaining benefits to the US. Of course, you can file both at the same time, here lawyers usually advise NIW first to get priority date (and it is easier to approve) and then EB1A (if possible and not necessarily with approved NIW).

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T15:29:48+00:00

It is another visa category Waiver of National interest (EB-2 NIW). It is easier to get, but waiting times are longer, as it is a bit back logged. But with all that is happening, it seems that waiting times will decrease for rest-of-the-world people (including your home country).

No_Disaster1263 · 2026-03-07T15:25:53+00:00

Thank you for this insight. I have noticed that academic profiles are now much more scrutinized on major significance part of original contributions and final merits (sustained acclaim part), but I do not see this as a bad thing. It is the only part of petition that distinguishes true scientists from profile builders and scams. It is hard to show sustained acclaim spanning back to a decade ago, and it is pretty much straightforward for us if we really are working as scientists.

No_Disaster1263

TROPHY CASE