USCIS officer 0389
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Number 0389 on your notice is an adjudicating desk, not a person. Our set holds 6 cases from it: 3 parsed notices and 3 coded cases.
What arrived
- RFE5
- DENIAL1
Center: Texas (2), Nebraska (1). Years: 2024, 2025, 2026.
Most often questioned
Accepted: Judging (1), Scholarly authorship (1).
Fields the cases came from
- sciences2
- arts1
The field split across our cases from this desk. A desk is not assigned by field - this reflects who filed, not what the desk specializes in.
These counts do NOT show how often this desk approves. The data holds only cases that already drew a request or refusal; petitions approved without questions never appear. You cannot choose or change your desk.
Why this criterion gets refused
The grounds officers actually rely on when they refuse this criterion, and how often it survives.
Among petitions that drew an RFE, NOID or denial and claimed this criterion, the officer accepted it in 14% of cases (25 of 184).
This is not an approval rate. The sample is petitions that were challenged, so it says how often a claimed criterion survived scrutiny - nothing about how often EB-1A petitions succeed overall.
Based on: 253 coded USCIS I-140 notices (RFE, NOID, denial) · updated Sep 6, 2026 · RFE by criterion
The award’s field does not match the field you are filing in, or is worded so that the link is not obvious.
The award itself is not shown to enjoy national or international recognition. It is the prize that is assessed, not merely the fact that you won it.
Grounds observed across 150 real USCIS notices, summarized in our own words - not quotations from any individual case.
How notices from this desk read
From community members' review of three EB-1A RFEs in 2024-2025 (a photographer - approved after the response, a software engineer, a neuropsychologist); notices came out through both Nebraska and Texas.
Three different fields - arts, IT and medicine - and one style: not industry-specific strictness but systematic devaluation of anything that comes from the applicant or their circle. The notice weighs each piece of evidence on two levels - does it formally fit, and how much does it weigh - and by default trusts only "preexisting, independent" traces: citations, contracts with unaffiliated companies, unsolicited coverage. Letters from colleagues are disqualified as a "circle of colleagues", the applicant's own explanations as "without objectivity", website metrics as not comparable with circulation. The regulation's text gets amplifiers: "in the field as a whole", "in comparison to competitors", "significantly higher".
Recurring patterns
- Eight signature phrases recur 5-15 times per notice: circle of colleagues, without objectivity, the mere act of, self-serving assertions, that one would expect, in any way questionable, expected of any employee, and the website-metrics paragraph.
- A five-tier evidence hierarchy: independent traces (citations, contracts, coverage) are accepted; employer letters count only for the role criterion; solicited expert letters are devalued; the applicant's own explanations are all but ignored.
- Website metrics - SimilarWeb, Alexa, page views, followers - are dismissed with a stock paragraph about "intentional and unintentional" visits.
- Paradoxical demands: letters from experts who know the work yet are not colleagues; proof that "the field as a whole" deems an award prestigious; proof that the audience came to the exhibition for your work specifically.
- The bar is raised with words absent from the regulation: "in the field as a whole", "in comparison to competitors", "significantly higher", "actual implementation throughout the field".
- Employer awards and promotions are neutralised with the formula "expected of any employee".
- A patent without implementation and a publication without citations are not a contribution of "major significance".
- Procedural demands are itemised: a separate certification for each translation, one profession per I-140, exhibit marking ("highlight or mark and tab"), detailed continued-work plans.
- The logical traps "Even if we were to consider…" and "While… however": evidence is acknowledged and immediately neutralised; the decision on it is already made.
- Judging is the "softest" criterion here: peer-review invitations and journal confirmations were credited without a fight over the journals' prestige.
Signature wording
Verbatim from the notices; applicants' details removed.
«USCIS cannot find that others, outside [the] circle of colleagues, find [the] work to be original or of major significance in the field.»
Original contributionLetters from people who worked with you do not prove significance to the field.
«You also provided your own explanation and narrative about [topic], but without objectivity, these explanations have little evidentiary weight.»
The applicant's own explanations sit at the bottom of the hierarchy; the most repeated line.
«Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by you in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions»
Original contributionEven an independent solicited letter loses to a trace that existed before the petition.
«However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is IN ANY WAY QUESTIONABLE, USCIS is not required to accept that evidence, or may give less weight to it.»
Matter of Caron and Matter of Sea: expert opinions are advisory.
«Receiving awards only indicates that the beneficiary has been a VALUABLE EMPLOYEE who is making contributions, which is EXPECTED OF ANY EMPLOYEE.»
Leading roleInternal employer awards do not prove a leading role.
«We are not persuaded that accessibility or page views by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 'major media' commensurate with the regulatory requirements.»
Published material about youPage views and site rankings are neither circulation nor major-media status.
«The mere act of posting an article online does not meet this criterion.»
Published material about youBeing posted online proves nothing by itself.
«With regard to a publication's own circulation statistics, you offer no primary documentary evidence to support the claims contained in these letters.»
Published material about youCirculation on the outlet's own word is not accepted (Braga v. Poulos).
«National and international recognition results through the AWARENESS OF THE ACCOLADE IN THE EYES OF THE FIELD nationally or internationally.»
AwardsWhat must be proven is the award's own recognition in the field, e.g. through coverage of the award.
«Having your photo enter a competition or be displayed alongside other photographers' work at a festival or exhibition does not meet the plain language of this criterion.»
ExhibitionsGroup shows and competitions are not a "showcase" of your work; a solo focus is needed.
«The record did not include evidence establishing that the field as a whole considers the event or organization is prestigious.»
The paradoxical demand: prove the whole field's opinion of an organisation.
«Please highlight or mark and TAB all relevant information in documents as this will assist USCIS»
A procedural demand about how exhibits are packaged.
By criterion: what it accepts and what it rejects
| Criterion | Accepts | Rejects |
|---|---|---|
| Awards | The award's own prestige: coverage of the award, selection criteria, the organiser's standing, past laureates with national acclaim. | "The mere act of receiving" without proof of the award's recognition in the field. |
| Membership | A detailed definition of "outstanding achievements" in the bylaws, the review process, the panel's qualifications and proof it actually assesses achievements. | The word "outstanding" in the bylaws on its own - "tantamount to" is not enough. |
| Published material about you | Third-party-verified circulation, a defined audience, independent confirmation of major-media status (the yardstick is The New York Times versus local outlets). | Page views, global rank, "intentional and unintentional" visits, circulation on the outlet's word. |
| Judging | Peer-review invitations and journals' confirmations of completed reviews - credited without a dispute over impact factors. | Faulty translations and participation without documentary proof. |
| Original contribution | Citations, adoption or replication by unaffiliated companies (Amin v. Mayorkas), coverage of the work, contracts with unaffiliated parties. | Solicited and colleague letters, a patent without implementation, a publication without response, charity as "significance". |
| Scholarly authorship | Peer-reviewed articles with a bibliography for specialists; pages showing author, title and journal suffice; Google Scholar as the preferred source. | Missing circulation information specific to the format (online versus print). |
| Exhibitions | Solo exhibitions with promotion, the gallery announcement, attendance, a catalogue, coverage and feedback; named and retrospective shows. | Group shows and competitions; scholarly presentations (Kazarian). |
| Leading role | Letters from current and former employers with comparative analysis and specifics; the organisation's standing compared with competitors. | Peer letters, internal awards, a "well-known company" without comparison. |
| High remuneration | Comparison with top earners via BLS and Career One Stop; for work outside the US - against the local market. | Medians and averages (Strategati v. Sessions), user-reported salary sites, plain conversion into dollars. |
Precedents it cites
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013) - A contribution of "major significance" needs influence beyond one's employer and clients.
- Braga v. Poulos, 317 F.App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) - An outlet's own circulation claims need not be accepted without independent proof.
- Strategati, LLC v. Sessions (S.D. Cal. 2019) - Comparison with the industry average does not show "significantly high remuneration".
- Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm. 1988) - Solicited letters weigh less than independent evidence; questionable opinions can be rejected.
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) - Scholarly presentations are not "artistic exhibitions or showcases".
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022) - One must show the contribution was widely adopted or replicated by unaffiliated actors.
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F.Supp.2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) - "Continuing to work in the area" means the same profession, not merely the same industry.
How to respond
- Collect independent traces first (citations, contracts, unsolicited coverage); expert letters are a supplement, not the base.
- Against "circle of colleagues" it is adoption, replication and press mentions that work, not more letters.
- Against "self-serving assertions" - third-party circulation data and independent audience metrics.
- File a patent together with proof of implementation; a publication together with citations and responses.
- For exhibitions - solo shows with the full packet: promotion, announcement, attendance, catalogue, coverage, feedback.
- For salary - a comparison with the top segment via BLS and Career One Stop, not the average.
- Procedure: a separate certification for each translation, one profession in the I-140, marked exhibits, a continued-work plan with contracts and letters of intent.
- When you see "Even if we were to consider" or "While… however", understand that the decision on that evidence is made; fixing formalities will not help - you need a different strategy.
Three notices are an observation, not statistics; one of the three cases was approved after the response. The source's claim that "the contribution criterion is credited in 4% of cases" comes without primary data and is not confirmed by us.
Common questions
What does officer number 0389 mean?
It is the code of an adjudicating desk inside a USCIS service center, not an employee's name. It cannot be resolved to an individual, and USCIS does not publish that information.
What should I focus on if my request came from this desk?
In our data this desk most often questioned: Awards, Membership, Original contribution. That is not a prediction, but a hint about which parts of the response deserve more depth. You still answer the text of your own request.
What do community reviews say about this desk's style?
Three different fields - arts, IT and medicine - and one style: not industry-specific strictness but systematic devaluation of anything that comes from the applicant or their circle. The notice weighs each piece of evidence on two levels - does it formally fit, and how much does it weigh - and by default trusts only "preexisting, independent" traces: citations, contracts with unaffiliated companies, unsolicited coverage. Letters from colleagues are disqualified as a "circle of colleagues", the applicant's own explanations as "without objectivity", website metrics as not comparable with circulation. The regulation's text gets amplifiers: "in the field as a whole", "in comparison to competitors", "significantly higher".