Skip to content

RFE objection "plain language not met": how it was answered

Key answer

The officer directly states that the evidence does not match the literal text of the criterion. Restructure the response around the 3 elements of the criterion: contribution, original, major significance in the field.

The objection belongs to the "Original contribution" 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

  1. Briefly describe what exactly you personally created
  2. Explain the problem in simple terms without jargon
  3. Show how the solution differs from common practice
  4. State the specific result: faster, cheaper, more accurate, safer
  5. Connect your contribution to its impact on the field, team, or users
  6. Remove general statements and replace them with verifiable facts

What was attached

  • documents describing your role
  • publications or materials naming your contribution
  • reviews from independent experts
  • metrics before and after implementation
  • examples of others using the solution
  • comparison with existing approaches

How the answer was worded

I developed a new approach to solving a practical problem that reduced processing time from X to Y and was used by other specialists. My personal contribution consisted of developing the method, verifying the results, and implementing the solution.

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.