0
Case Stories
❌ EB-1A Denied after RFE - Government Affairs Professional PD 2025-09
E
· 17 views
❌ **Case Status: Denied**
---
A senior government affairs and regulatory policy professional with 20+ years of experience, including parliamentary service and Harvard education, had their EB-1A petition denied following an RFE. The denial came despite accepted criteria for judging and scholarly articles, and an added membership criterion in the RFE response.
A highly credentialed professional in government affairs, regulatory policy, and strategic communications filed an EB-1A petition in September 2025. The petitioner holds a law degree, two master's degrees (including one from Harvard), and has 20+ years of experience spanning parliamentary service, national industry association leadership, presidential advisory roles, and private sector regulatory affairs. Originally filed with five criteria: judging others' work (accepted), scholarly articles (accepted), published material about the applicant (RFE'd), original contributions (RFE'd), and leading/critical role (RFE'd). A membership criterion was added during the RFE response. Despite a robust response, USCIS issued a denial in March 2026. The petitioner noted the RFE contained factual errors, including mischaracterizing them as an academic. The denial letter had not yet been received at time of posting.
---
**[📎 View Original Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/comments/1rt4zpp/eb1a_denied_after_rfe/)**
*Source: Reddit I-140 EB*
---
*This post was automatically curated from online sources to share real case experiences with the community.*
This case illustrates a recurring pattern in EB-1A adjudications: having criteria accepted at initial review does not prevent a final denial, particularly when core criteria like original contributions and leading/critical role face scrutiny. The roughly 6-month timeline from petition to denial (Sep 2025–Mar 2026) is consistent with current EB-1A processing under premium processing or expedited review. RFE responses that add new criteria (membership here) can sometimes signal to officers that the original petition was borderline. Petitioners in government affairs and policy roles often struggle with the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion because impact is systemic and diffuse rather than measurable like citations in academia. For similar cases: obtain the denial notice before deciding next steps, as the specific reasoning determines whether a motion to reopen (MTR), motion to reconsider (MTC), or a fresh EB-1A or EB-2 NIW filing is the stronger path.