The Hidden Psychology Behind USCIS RFEs in EB-1A Cases

Often, it is an enigma to many applicants why they have received an RFE despite having a solid case. And, when they do receive the request for evidence, they often feel insurmountable pressure and many give up working on the case altogether, thinking this is the end!

However, from our experience, our EB1A consultants have noticed that there are some hidden yardsticks and psychology that work behind USCIS’s adjudication.

Here we have zoomed into precisely why so many applicants receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) even after satisfying the minimum three EB-1A criteria.

The unsaid structure of USCIS adjudication

Officially, USCIS evaluates EB-1A petitions through a two-step framework that emerged after the landmark Kazarian v. USCIS decision. The first step examines whether an applicant satisfies at least three regulatory criteria. The second step, also known as the “final merits determination”, evaluates whether the evidence, taken as a whole, truly demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

This second stage is where psychology quietly enters the process.

USCIS officers are not simply asking: “Did this person submit enough documents?” They are also subconsciously asking: “Do I genuinely believe this individual belongs among the small percentage at the top of the field?”

That distinction changes everything.

Many RFEs originate from what can be called “credibility dissonance.” The evidence may technically satisfy criteria, but the overall narrative may feel fragmented to the adjudicators. Often, the USCIS adjudicators doubt that the evidence might be artificial, inflated, or strategically manufactured. An applicant may present dozens of awards, publications, memberships, and judging activities, yet still fail to create the impression of authentic distinction.

This explains why officers often challenge evidence that appears overly transactional:

• awards with unclear prestige,
• publications in low-authority outlets,
• judging opportunities lacking selectivity,
• memberships obtained through payment rather than excellence, or
• media coverage that feels promotional rather than independent.

In psychological terms, USCIS is trying to separate signal from noise.

The agency’s own policy guidance repeatedly emphasizes “sustained acclaim,” “recognition,” and evidence viewed “in totality.” These phrases reveal something important: the EB-1A process is fundamentally narrative-driven. Officers are evaluating whether the applicant’s career reflects a naturally evolving pattern of excellence rather than a last-minute attempt to engineer eligibility.

This is why organic profile building has become increasingly important in modern EB-1A strategy.

Artificial vs. authentic EB1A profile

An authentic EB-1A profile tends to display internal consistency:

• meaningful contributions,
• third-party validation,
• progressive recognition,
• leadership evolution, and
• influence extending beyond the applicant’s immediate workplace.

Artificial profiles, on the other hand, often reveal abrupt spikes in activity shortly before filing:

• sudden judging invitations,
• mass publication campaigns,
• purchased awards, or
• memberships lacking real distinction.

Even when such evidence technically satisfies regulatory language, officers may issue RFEs because the profile fails to convince the adjudicators psychologically.

The rise of the “final merits determination” intensified this subjectivity. USCIS explicitly states that officers must evaluate evidence “in the context of the high level of expertise required” for EB-1A classification. In effect, officers are asked to make an intuitive judgment about professional stature.

This has generated increasing controversy in recent years. Several legal observers and federal court decisions have criticized USCIS for using the final merits stage too aggressively. These cases have argued that officers sometimes impose unwritten standards beyond existing regulations. In early 2026, the federal case Mukherji v. Miller challenged USCIS’s application of the final merits framework after the agency denied a petition despite acknowledging that the applicant met multiple EB-1A criteria.

The demonstration above is to suggest that a moment of decision rests with the adjudicators and the latter is mostly psychological. As an applicant, you should take all the steps to tip the scale of favour to your side.

The strongest petitions work out this factor with conviction. And, our veteran EB1A mentorship works with you to ensure you can win the adjudicators psychologically with your robust profile.

A good profile helps the officer intuitively understand:

• why the applicant matters,
• why their work changed the field,
• why recognition came naturally, and
• why the individual represents the kind of exceptional talent the United States seeks to retain.

In this sense, the hidden psychology behind RFEs is not entirely adversarial. USCIS is attempting, however imperfectly, to distinguish genuine distinction from performative achievement.

The applicants who understand this psychological dimension often approach EB-1A differently. Instead of chasing isolated checklist items, they build a coherent professional legacy.

And ultimately, that is what extraordinary ability was always meant to represent. At GCEB1, we make this aspiration of organic profile come true. For more detailed guidance, you can get in touch with us directly. We wish you a safe and stress-free immigration journey.