RFE on the "Original contribution" criterion: common objections and how to respond
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Broken down from 108 real denials and RFEs on this criterion: which objections officers raise most often, what each one means and what closes it. Community experience, not legal advice.
Common objections (7)
plain language not met
The officer directly states that the evidence does not match the literal text of the criterion.
What fixes it: Restructure the response around the 3 elements of the criterion: contribution, original, major significance in the field.Tool How it was closed
No major significance
The officer's primary conclusion is that the contribution was not shown to have major significance for the field as a whole.
What fixes it: Add independent evidence of impact on the field: implementations, citations, industry effects, metrics, and external confirmations.Tool How it was closed
The contribution appears unoriginal
The officer views the claimed techniques as variations of existing approaches, not as an original contribution.
What fixes it: Show exactly what was new: comparison with prior art, dates, distinctions, and independent recognition of novelty.Tool How it was closed
Support letters are weak
The support letters do not explain the originality and major significance of the contribution in the profession or field.
What fixes it: Revise the letters so the authors specifically describe the contribution, its novelty, scope of impact, and independent facts.Tool How it was closed
Patents, articles, or a product are not sufficient on their own
The officer acknowledges the existence of a patent, articles, or a created product, but does not consider this evidence of major significance.
What fixes it: For each patent, article, or product, add evidence of real-world use, impact, adoption, and independent recognition.Tool How it was closed
The scale within the field specifically has not been proven
The officer requires proof of the contribution's significance not to the employer or project, but to the field of endeavor.
What fixes it: Add evidence that the contribution affected the industry or professional community beyond the petitioner and their organizations.Tool How it was closed
Concerns about the background
The officer states that concerns about the work history undermine the evidence for this criterion.
What fixes it: Resolve inconsistencies in the work history with documents, a timeline, position confirmations, and the connection between the contributions and periods of employment.Tool How it was closed
How to respond (from real cases)
The deadline (up to 87 days), the packet order and how long a decision takes - in the general guide to the RFE response by criterion.
plain language not met
Rewrite the description of the contribution in plain language: what the problem was, exactly what the applicant did, why it was different from ordinary practice, and what measurable result the field received.
What to attach: A brief 1-page summary, before-and-after diagram, metrics table, explanation of terms without jargon, quotes from independent sources in plain language.
No major significance
Show not just the quality of the work, but its significance for the field: who used the result, what decisions changed, and what standards, products, methods, or practices were affected.
What to attach: Independent implementations, links in industry materials, usage data, references in documentation, impact reports, comparison of metrics before and after implementation.
The contribution appears unoriginal
Separate the applicant's contribution from general team results and known approaches: identify the specific new part, the applicant's role, and how it differed from prior art.
What to attach: Table of novelty vs prior art, internal technical documents, patent claims, publications describing the method, confirmations from independent experts of what exactly was new.
Support letters are weak
Replace general praise with letters that contain facts: the author's independence, their expertise, the specific contribution, causation, and the scale of impact.
What to attach: Letters from independent experts, users, or partners; include dates, projects, metrics, implementations; explain why the contribution mattered to the field, not just to the employer.
Patents, articles, or a product are not sufficient on their own
Use patents, articles, and the product not as the end goal, but as the basis for proving real impact: citations, licensing, implementation, commercial or technical use.
What to attach: Data on citations, licenses, production deployments, revenue, or cost savings without disclosing confidential information, user testimonials, independent reviews, technical reports.
The scale within the field specifically has not been proven
Define the field narrowly and show that the impact went beyond a single company, team, or product; demonstrate recognition and use by external participants in the field.
What to attach: A field map, list of user categories, independent publications, industry reports, standards, open-source adoption, external integrations, and usage statistics by market or segment.
Concerns about the background
Resolve chronology and role inconsistencies: provide a clear timeline, connect positions to contributions, confirm qualifications, and explain any gaps or differences in wording.
What to attach: A CV in a consistent format, timeline, employer or colleague letters, contracts without sensitive data, job duty descriptions, proof of authorship and participation in key stages.
Mistakes that sink the response
- Replacing contribution with a count of achievements: many certificates, projects, publications, or awards do not by themselves prove an original contribution of major importance.
- Proving only the importance of the field, not the personal contribution: the officer needs to see what substantial thing the applicant did, not that the industry is important in general.
- Relying mainly on letters from close colleagues, employers, or clients without independent data and concrete examples of impact.
- Adding new materials to an RFE without explaining how they address the officer's comments: a large number of pages does not replace clear argumentation.
- Mixing local success with industry contribution: good results within one company, project, or team need to be tied to broader professional impact.
How often the criterion is accepted in challenged petitions
Among petitions that drew an RFE, NOID or denial and claimed this criterion, the officer accepted it in 4% of cases (9 of 209).
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 wording of the criterion, sentence by sentence
This criterion elsewhere on the site
Got an RFE? Upload it - we will break down the objections automatically
A free response plan from your document: we identify the officer's objections and suggest what to attach.
From community practice
Original contribution is best shown by INDEPENDENT citations of your work and its adoption, not by self-description - a frequent takeaway from community case reviews.
A talk at a selective conference supports original contribution, and the published proceedings support authorship; an invited or keynote talk is valued above a poster in discussions.
Premium processing speeds up adjudication but does not raise the chance of approval - the community repeats this constantly: evidence quality decides, not speed.
Distilled from public community chats - observations, not legal advice.
From community discussions
«For a specialist, citations don't matter) you just need the fact that you published scientific articles and that's it, at least 2 of them, both for O-1 and for EB, this criterion doesn't prove extraordinary ability on its own )»
community member · from public community chats
«If you have articles and someone cited them, write to all the authors of the articles that cited your article and ask for a recommendation, like, you cited my article, so you must have liked it, give me a recommendation)»
community member · from public community chats
«In general it seems to me that for EB1/2 you don't necessarily need a high h-index. For example, you can prove a contribution to the field even with a single article if it has 500+ citations. And having publications doesn't require citations for them.»
Anna · from public community chats
Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.
Approval stories
What the officer actually did with this criterion
Across 159 of 259 real notices where this criterion appears, what the officer's own text did with it. In 45% he discussed the evidence that was filed; in 45% the criterion appeared only as recited regulation.
- engaged with the evidence45% · 71the officer wrote about the specific exhibits, not the criterion in general
- only recited the criterion45% · 71the regulation text with no discussion of what was filed
- questioned it4% · 6asked for more without deciding
- explicitly rejected it6% · 9
- noted nothing was filed1% · 2
These are notices - petitions that already drew an RFE, a NOID or a denial - so none of this is an approval rate. It measures attention, not outcome: a criterion the officer usually only recites is one where more exhibits are unlikely to change the reading, and a criterion he argues with in detail is where the response has to do its work.
What people ask about this criterion
RFE on other criteria
Generalized from real community RFEs/denials (anonymized). Independent project, not affiliated with USCIS; not legal advice.