RFE objection "plain language not met": how it was answered
Key answer
The officer specifically states that the submitted evidence does not meet the plain language requirement of the judging criterion. Add direct evidence of serving specifically as a judge of others' work in the relevant field.
The objection belongs to the "Judging" criterion. Below is what the community did to close it: the order of steps, the documents that were attached and the wording that went into the answer.
Steps that closed it
- Rewrite the text in simple language: short sentences, no bureaucratic wording or complex terms
- Clearly explain who evaluates, what is evaluated, and under which criteria
- Replace vague wording with specific and verifiable statements
- Add a clear scoring scale and decision-making conditions
- Remove professional jargon or provide a brief explanation
What was attached
- Updated plain-language version of the text
- Evaluation criteria table with a clear scale
- Brief description of the expert evaluation process
- Example decision for one generalized case
How the answer was worded
The evaluation is conducted by independent experts. Each expert reviews the application under pre-defined criteria: alignment with the goal, quality of the description, feasibility of the timeline, and expected outcome. Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5. The final decision is made based on the total score.
A pattern, not a template to copy: the wording only works with your own facts behind it.
Where to check this
Other objections on this criterion
Reference information and community experience, not legal advice. The AAO figures are lessons from appeals, not approval odds; fees and timelines change - verify on uscis.gov.