Rfe Response Drafter

Phase 1: RFE Intake

Read the RFE letter carefully

USCIS RFE letters follow a predictable structure. Extract:

1. Header info — receipt number, petition type, beneficiary, petitioner, filing date
2. Deadline — response must be received by this date (no extensions)
3. General standard — the RFE restates the legal standard (Kazarian two-step, Dhanasar prongs, etc.)
4. Which criteria/prongs were argued — USCIS lists what the petitioner claimed
5. Which criteria were MET — sometimes USCIS acknowledges some criteria are satisfied
6. Which criteria were NOT MET — the core of the RFE
7. For each deficiency — extract the EXACT language USCIS used to explain why it wasn't met
8. What USCIS says you can submit — they often provide a bulleted list of acceptable evidence

Build the deficiency table

For every criterion/prong that was NOT met, extract:

| # | Criterion/Prong | USCIS Finding (exact language) | What USCIS Says to Submit |
|---|----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|
| 1 | Awards | "The record does not establish that venture capital investment is a recognized award for excellence in the field" | Documentary evidence of criteria used to grant the award; reputation of granting org; geographic scope; how many awarded each year; previous winners |
| 2 | Membership | "The evidence does not establish that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members" | Evidence of membership; info on reviewers; constitution/bylaws discussing criteria |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Also note:

• Criteria that WERE met (don't reargue these — just maintain)
• Whether the RFE addresses Step 2 (totality) or only Step 1 (individual criteria)
• Any specific case law or policy the RFE cites
• Any specific evidence the RFE says was considered and found insufficient

Phase 2: Original Case Analysis

Read the original petition (support letter + exhibits) and diagnose what went wrong for each deficiency.

Common root causes

For each deficiency, identify:

1. What was originally submitted
2. What specifically USCIS found insufficient about it
3. The root cause (from the table above)
4. What would fix it

Phase 3: Gap Analysis

Map deficiencies to fixes

For each deficiency, produce:

### Deficiency [#]: [Criterion/Prong] — [Short description]

**USCIS said:** "[exact quote from RFE]"

**What was originally submitted:**
- [List of exhibits that were submitted for this criterion]

**Root cause:** [Why USCIS wasn't convinced]

**What's needed to fix it:**
- [Specific new evidence #1]
- [Specific new evidence #2]
- [Specific new argument adjustment]

**Can it be fixed?** [Yes / Partially / Unlikely]
- Yes = new evidence is available or obtainable
- Partially = some issues can be addressed but the criterion may still be weak
- Unlikely = fundamental problem (e.g., no qualifying awards exist)

**If unlikely to fix:** Consider dropping this criterion and strengthening others.
USCIS only requires 3 of 8/10 — it's better to have 3 strong criteria than 5 weak ones.

Strategic assessment

After analyzing all deficiencies, present:

## STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

| Criterion/Prong | Original Status | RFE Status | Fixable? | Recommended Action |
|----------------|----------------|-----------|----------|-------------------|
| 1. Awards | Argued | Not met | Partially | Reframe with new evidence; drop VC-as-award if unsalvageable |
| 2. Membership | Argued | Not met | Yes | Submit bylaws + expert reviewer credentials |
| 3. Published material | Argued | Not met | Yes | Submit actual articles with circulation data |
| 4. Judging | Argued | Met | — | Maintain; no action needed |
| 5. Original contributions | Not argued | — | — | Consider adding if other criteria weak |
| 6. Critical employment | Argued | Not met | Yes | Get employer letter with specifics |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Minimum needed:** 3 criteria met at Step 1
**Currently met:** [N]
**Likely to meet after response:** [N]
**Risk level:** [Low / Medium / High]

Phase 4: Response Strategy

The three rules of RFE responses

Rule 1: Address EVERY deficiency. Don't skip any. If you can't fix a criterion, say you're withdrawing that argument and relying on others instead.

Rule 2: Submit NEW evidence. Repeating what was in the original petition without adding anything new almost always fails. The adjudicator already read it and wasn't convinced. Add:

• New expert letters (especially from independent experts)
• New documentary evidence (organization bylaws, website printouts with URLs, comparative data)
• New web source printouts (government data, organizational websites)
• Corrected or supplemented versions of original exhibits

Rule 3: Don't just reargue — add. An RFE response that is only a legal brief without new evidence is a denial waiting to happen. Every point must have both argument AND evidence.

For each deficiency, plan:

1. New evidence to submit — what specific documents or data will be added
2. New argument — how to reframe the argument to address USCIS's specific concern
3. Which original evidence to re-reference — exhibits already in the record that should be cited alongside new evidence
4. Who needs to do what — does the attorney need to contact an organization for a letter? Does the client need to gather new documents?

Phase 5: Draft the Response

Response letter structure

[Date]

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
[Service Center address from RFE]

RE: [Receipt Number]
    [Form I-129/I-140], [Classification]
    Petitioner: [Name]
    Beneficiary: [Name]
    Response to Request for Evidence

Dear Immigration Officer,

This letter is submitted in response to the Request for Evidence (RFE)
dated [date], received by the undersigned on [date]. We respectfully
submit the following additional evidence and arguments in support of
the above-referenced petition.

[SECTION FOR EACH DEFICIENCY — in the same order USCIS listed them]

[CONCLUSION]

Sincerely,
[Attorney signature block]

For each deficiency section:

## [CRITERION NAME — matching USCIS's exact heading from the RFE]

The Service noted that [paraphrase USCIS's specific concern — show you read it].

We respectfully submit the following additional evidence to address this concern:

**New Exhibit [X]: [Description]**
[Explain what this new exhibit shows and why it addresses the deficiency]

**New Exhibit [Y]: [Description]**
[Explain what this new exhibit shows]

[Argument paragraph connecting the new evidence to the legal standard,
addressing USCIS's specific concern point by point]

In light of the original evidence already in the record (See Exhibits [original #s])
together with the additional evidence submitted herewith (See New Exhibits [X, Y, Z]),
the Beneficiary has established [that they meet this criterion / the requirements of
this prong].

Key drafting rules

• Mirror USCIS's language. Use the same criterion headings and terminology USCIS used in the RFE
• Address the SPECIFIC concern. If USCIS said "no evidence of the selection committee's qualifications," respond specifically about the selection committee's qualifications — don't talk about something else
• Lead with new evidence. Don't start with argument — start with "We submit New Exhibit X, which shows..."
• Reference original exhibits too. The response builds on the original record: "Together with Exhibit [original] and New Exhibit [new], the record establishes..."
• Don't be adversarial. Tone is respectful: "We respectfully submit..." not "The Service erroneously found..."
• If dropping a criterion, say so explicitly: "The Petitioner respectfully withdraws the claim under [criterion] and relies on the following [N] criteria..."

Phase 6: Output

Save as workspace/<matter-name>/rfe-response/rfe_response_package.md:

# RFE Response Package
# Receipt: [Number]
# Petition Type: [O-1A / EB-1A / NIW]
# RFE Date: [Date]
# Deadline: [Date]
# Generated: [Date]

---

## PART 1: RFE ANALYSIS

### Deficiency Table
| # | Criterion | USCIS Finding | Root Cause | Fixable? |
|---|-----------|--------------|-----------|----------|

### Strategic Assessment
| Criterion | Status | Recommended Action |
|-----------|--------|-------------------|

### Risk Level: [Low / Medium / High]

---

## PART 2: NEW EVIDENCE NEEDED

| New Exhibit | Description | Who Provides It | Status |
|-------------|-------------|----------------|--------|
| New Ex. A | [Organization] bylaws showing membership criteria | Attorney requests from org | [ ] Obtained |
| New Ex. B | BLS comparative salary data | Research | [ ] Obtained |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## PART 3: RESPONSE LETTER DRAFT

[Full response letter]

---

## PART 4: ACTION ITEMS

### Attorney
- [ ] [Request bylaws from Organization X]
- [ ] [Get new expert letter from independent expert]
- [ ] [Print web sources for filing]

### Client
- [ ] [Provide updated employment verification]
- [ ] [Gather additional award certificates]

### Research
- [ ] [Find BLS data for SOC code + geography]
- [ ] [Verify organization statistics are current]

### Deadline: [Date] — submit to USCIS by this date, no extensions

Best Practices

• Read the RFE THREE times before starting — first for overall picture, second for specific deficiencies, third for what USCIS says you CAN submit
• The bulleted lists in the RFE where USCIS says "you may submit" are a roadmap — treat them as a checklist
• Never ignore a deficiency — even if you think USCIS was wrong, address it with evidence
• New evidence is essential — rearguing with the same exhibits almost always fails
• Independent expert letters are the most impactful new evidence for an RFE response — someone USCIS hasn't seen before who corroborates the claim
• If a criterion is unsalvageable, drop it explicitly and strengthen others — don't waste the adjudicator's time on a losing argument
• Check the deadline first — if there are only 2 weeks left, prioritize the quickest-to-obtain evidence
• The response should be organized in the SAME ORDER as the RFE — so the adjudicator can follow along
• Always include a new exhibit list at the start of the response showing what's been added to the record
• After drafting, run /petition-audit on the response — the same verification standards apply