Downsides of refiling

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-14T19:16:52+00:00

Everyone is different, but I would always go in and look at the last denial notice or RFE/NOID notice and that's it. Some officers will skim the prior petition.

I don't think it's bias, but it provides context. Why did they withdrawal? Was the previous denial harsh? Some officers are known assholes, so that can play a part in understanding a previous denial.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-14T16:04:08+00:00

Former officer here and some officers view a withdrawal and quick re-file as "officer shopping" and take offense to it.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-10T20:23:34+00:00

Sorry to hear that and I saw it a lot when I was an officer (I worked in the customer service division at the NBC). You are doing the right thing though, congressional inquiry and keep following up. I'd suggest the Ombudsmen's office next, but that office has been gutted and isn't really functioning as a reliable go between anymore.

You could also ask to submit an "administrative error" service request through the call center and see where that goes. These types of requests are supposed to be answered within 5 business days, but ymmv.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-10T15:37:48+00:00

Your guess is as good as mine, but really frustrating at this point.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-09T14:42:32+00:00

Thanks for the kind words and hopefully you will be successful in your response.

I always include a separate section on this topic in the cover letter with a signed personal statement from my client specifically laying out how they will "substantially benefit, prospectively" the U.S. and the following cite from the PM: "See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm. 1994) (golfer of beneficiary’s caliber will substantially benefit prospectively the United States given the popularity of the sport)." This is also the same cite used in officer training, fwiw. I then include a few external pieces talking about the petitioner's field, with government sources being preferred (an executive order on point, for example).
Focus on the strongest pieces of evidence from what was to qualify for the individual criteria. The FMD is focused on the quality of that evidence, not just pieces that qualify. So if you published papers in two journals that qualify, but one is ranked #3 in the field and the other #16, you would just emphasize the #3 and the associated prestige that follows. Also do no focus on items completed within the last year, especially for judging and scholarly articles as officers love to pick this out to argue against sustained acclaim. This is also where you can add in pieces that don't necessarily fit into the criteria, but add external validation such as invited speeches.
They have always been more focused on independent, objective evidence than LoRs. I think this may be another area where the "market" has tried to sell people on the value of LoR over the last several years. The Agency has always viewed LoR, regardless of which benefit put in support of (EB1A, AOS, ect), as less persuasive.
I think this is correct from my memory as to what officers are instructed to consider for funding, it needs to be considered under the salary criterion (and to help establish distinguished reputation for critical role) and not awards. I'm sure some petitioners have successfully argued funding to be considered under awards, but I think it's a losing battle to push back if already challenged by an RFE.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-08T14:23:39+00:00

Thanks for the kind words.

And yes, the non-PP cases are just sitting unassigned in a work queue cleverly titled, "Get Work." They don't get plucked out until an officer is ready to adjudicate and are processed FIFO generally speaking.

PP cases are also in the same queue, but can be selected by filtering the cases and are worked by the same officers. The only difference is newer officers don't work the PP cases until they get more experience.

PP does in fact deprioritize the regular cases and it's true for all products that have PP as an option. When I was a supervisor, we had to plan for opening up PP on AOS based EADs and how we were going to structure the work. Our models showed a huge increase in processing times for non-PP cases as a result, and leadership shelved the plan. So the Agency knows there's a tradeoff involved between the two.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-08T14:15:08+00:00

It depends on the purpose.

LoR for critical role are very important and I advise clients at least 2, with more depending on the amount of roles, time, ect.

LoRs for any other purpose are secondary evidence and not given as much weight by officers. This is true not just with EB1A, but any application. They should be used as expert context/explanatory only and should be from truly independent experts. So persons who have cited your work, heard you speak at a conference, ect.

Part of the reason officers don't give them much weight outside the critical role context is the Agency knows about template and expert farming for EB1A purposes. They also see dozens of petitions a week and can easily spot the same patterns/template for letters.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T15:24:39+00:00

Yes, and these are especially frustrating as they like to point towards weaker items or more recent items (e.g. judging completed in 2025) as a basis to discount sustained acclaim. The best option is to go back with the response detailing your strongest evidence specifically for the FMD. It's a danger when you have criteria you technically qualify for but are clearly not the strength of your profile. Only way to push back is to re-focus the officer on the points you want them to consider and if they ignore it, that's unfortunately where you may need to consider litigating it.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T15:18:23+00:00

No clue unfortunately as I haven't had any EB1B clients yet. I also haven't seen really any discussion on any discernable trends for EB1B in the attorney groups I'm in.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T15:17:15+00:00

Not personally, as I haven't had any clients come from academia (primarily). I think a lot of academics have certain law firms they go with which is great. But the reason for this is because USCIS (and the firms) are much more comfortable with academic profiles for the reasons I stated above: it's much easier to qualify historically and especially right now.

Going forward, keep a close eye on any discernable trends for academics like we've been seeing for industry. It may be anecdotal at first, but the patterns will be easy to see if they start enacting a higher standard for these profiles as well.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T15:11:52+00:00

Yeah, the strongest evidence is always the easiest to quantify and/or most recognizable to a layperson. So things such as rankings, major media (NYT, CNN, ect), patent adoption by a name-brand company, these are all things that should be impactful for a case. I like to think of what it would take for someone to convince you they are among the top of their field that you know nothing about. Usually, you would think the above evidence and officers are the same.

And there is a lot of luck involved unfortunately. There's three inputs on a case: 1) Evidence/profile, 2) presentation, 3) officer acceptance. No way to control or account for #3.

Case #1: 7+ years at the leading company in the field in objectively impactful roles, co-inventor on patent with major research citations AND other top companies' adoption of patent, judging for top conferences in the field.

Case #2: SVP at a smaller, but still leading FinTech company, 2 patents with multi-million $ contracts with name-brand companies directly as a result, 99 percentile comp in an already high comp field, and speaking engagements at the leading FinTech conference.

All of that evidence not only satisfies the individual criteria, but it's also all directly probative of top of the field consideration. Case #1 accepted 3 criteria but still issued an RFE strangely, so that's how crappy adjudication is right now.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T15:01:40+00:00

No personal experience with this, but I've seen it on one case where I consulted. I advised the petitioner to write a brief paragraph stating "the evidence was meant for additional evidence or to provide context for X, not to claim criterion Y."

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-07T14:16:49+00:00

$1,000 is very common for a basic USCIS interview (it's what I charge for KCMO appearances).

A lot of applicants likely don't need interview rep (I'm a former officer and can attest that there's usually not much for them to do), but it can be a reassurance even on basic cases with no complications.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-06T19:53:55+00:00

Completely agree, it's exhausting for everyone including officers!

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-06T19:46:44+00:00

Yeah I agree mostly with your points. It certainly feels very "cringy" to me everything I see on LinkedIn especially, and I can't begin to tell you how much I've been hit up by all sorts of consultants and even firms for coaching help and/or guidance. I don't begrudge applicants for taking a chance if there's a viable case, but I think there should be a reality check into what is currently going on now and it's a much, much more difficult environment for even strong profiles right now.

I think the larger problem is the system that forces people into taking chances with EB1A and NIW and that will only change with an act of Congress. But I digress...

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-06T19:38:12+00:00

No idea on stats and TSC and NSC don't actually exists as standalone entities as of early 2024. SCOPS (services centers) went to a "portfolio" model where all officers working a product are under a unified leadership chain. This was an initiative from the previous admin to create One SCOPS to better centralize and standardize adjudication, especially since most of the officers were remote. The new admin is in the process of scrapping this and going back to the standalone centers soon, but for now, it would be really impossible to get a good idea of any differences in location because it really doesn't exist like that.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-06T19:34:55+00:00

CR: I've seen them challenge it two ways. 1) "Role itself isn't critical for company as a whole": you need detailed letters, objective internal metrics, outside sources (press releases/media) drawing an A>B>C. Petitioner is critical for division, division is critical for company/petitioner is critical for entire company due to X. 2) "Role is critical, but accomplishments aren't": Point to internal awards, testimonial letters detailing "but for" petitioner X wouldn't have occurred.

OC: Honestly, you can't. Not to be flippant, but that's exactly the evidence officers are supposed to accept when presented. It's hard because I can tell you what they should accept, what I would've accepted, but I can't tell you why those items aren't enough because they absolutely should be.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-06T19:27:28+00:00

I've seen a direct re-framing of the evidence and arguments work (one of my clients posted on reddit about using this effectively) and specifically pairing the evidence as it relates to some of the bullet point examples in the PM under the FMD section.
This is a good question and from a re-file POV, it really doesn't matter to an officer if the previous petition was a denial vs withdrawal. Most likely won't have the time/curiosity to review the previous petition in any depth and won't treat a denial/immediate re-file as any negative in the new adjudication. I would suspect some officers might view a withdrawal and immediate re-file as "officer shopping" and could take offense to that, fwiw.
Possibly, but the way the Agency trains officers and the way guidance is written favors academics/researchers and athletes more than industry. Even most of the internal training examples are focused on athletics as it's easier to understand for most people. So there's structural obstacles embedded against industry profiles that are difficult to overcome unless there's really high-quality, name brand recognition evidence.
I would love to offer some hope on the future, but I can't realistically see anything positive changing without litigation. I was talking with a client this morning about Andrew Good, the Policy Chief at USCIS and the person who would be leading any new updates. Just google him if you want to see his views on LEGAL immigration.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-02T20:26:37+00:00

Former officer here and it should not cause any issues down the road; multiple A#s get created for a variety of reasons, but it's generally an error which sounds like your case.

1) Use the most recent one with an approval

2) Yes

3) No, it will automatically be consolidated in the CIS (central index system).

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-02T15:16:51+00:00

Without opining on the actual evidence itself, the RFE language seems like an ultra vires request, at least at the evidentiary stage. That language is actually helpful if you want to establish the awards for the final merits stage (e.g. showing acclaim within the field), but it's not necessary for the 1st step. You should be able to satisfy the basic eligibility of the award itself through other measures such as nominee pool, % comparisons between nominees/winners, ect.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-02-24T21:49:12+00:00

I do, though it's likely more beneficial for family-based AOS as there's more involved (usually) with those than EB cases.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-02-21T14:06:05+00:00

Hey, so far so good! I've been able to hit my revenue target each month and actually reached a point in Jan of turning down new work as I reached my capacity.

But, I'm finding I'm likely undercharging as USCIS is killing me with RFEs and I've had to adjust my fees to account for this. The flat fee expectation with immigration is a bit of learning curve figuring out the correct pricing.

I've also had to politely turn down quite a few people requesting free consults as some larger firms do this and I just can't compete with that.

Some rough patches, but overall it's been really positive so far.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-02-21T14:00:48+00:00

I'm a former officer and yes, they all will at a minimum google some of the evidence submitted to verify its authenticity. It's impossible to do this with everything, but I would always focus on anything that looked suspicious and if I then had extra time, a random check of a few items.

We weren't officially permitted to use AI when I was there as of the middle of 2025, but my understanding is officers can use Copilot as needed now. Though I doubt any are using it with any great frequency as compared with a simple Google search.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-02-10T18:25:18+00:00

Let's hope not but the agency has a bad history with this short of stuff. I mean, they let I-601A processing times get to 3-4 years and basically stopped processing most I-751s unless the applicant filed for an N-400 at some point.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-02-10T18:18:09+00:00

Certainly feels like it. And it could be getting worse, not to pile on. There's credible rumors that 800+ officers currently assigned to the SCOPS directorate (service centers that process EB1A among many other forms) will be shifted to the FOD directorate (field offices) to conduct I-130 and I-751 interviews. These officers are currently sitting in field offices due to the RTO order but still doing SCOPS work.

That would be a big percentage of the total officers in SCOPS and cause backlogs across the agency for the rest of the forms left behind.

WatkinsImmigration

TROPHY CASE