Case Processing

J
Jay Chan
2h
EB-2 NIW approved with Chen after an RFE on all three prongs — physics PhD/postdoc
My EB-2 NIW I-140 was approved on October 16, 2026, after an RFE challenging all three prongs. I wanted to share my timeline and overall positive experience working with CHEN (Wegreened), along with some lessons from preparing the response. Background I have a PhD in physics, with research in the ATLAS experiment and machine learning for particle physics, and I am currently a postdoc. My proposed endeavor is developing AI/ML methods and analysis strategies for high-energy physics. At the original filing, my record included: * 329 peer-reviewed journal articles, including four first-authored articles, plus conference papers and preprints. * 22,888 citations, increasing to 47,992 in the updated record used for the RFE response. An important caveat: most of my publications are large ATLAS collaboration papers. These numbers should be understood in that context. Explaining my individual contributions within the collaboration was one of the issues addressed in the response. Timeline * August 7, 2024: Original petition submitted under regular processing. * March 2026: Requested premium processing. * Mid-May 2026: RFE issued. * Mid-August 2026: USCIS acknowledged receiving the RFE response. * October 16, 2026: I-140 approved! The RFE response The RFE challenged all three prongs, although substantial merit was accepted; the concern under the first prong was national importance. The response included a detailed personal statement, five recommendation letters, and additional evidence explaining the significance of my research, my individual contributions, and how other researchers had used my work. For the personal statement, I described three research directions: AI/ML for particle reconstruction, faster physics simulation, and automation of physics-analysis workflows. The hardest part was explaining why my specific work matters to the United States and finding sources to support that argument. It took considerable effort to connect the technical research plans with broader scientific priorities and benefits beyond my employer. CHEN provided a structure and guidance, but I drafted the statement and identified the supporting evidence myself. They reviewed and refined it afterward, though the changes were relatively minor. Recommendation letters CHEN initially recommended filing without recommendation letters, so we did not include any in the original petition. For the RFE response, we added three letters from researchers who knew me and had worked with me, and two from independent researchers. The dependent letters were straightforward to arrange because those researchers knew my work personally and were willing to help. Finding independent recommenders was more challenging. The suggested candidates were U.S.-based researchers who had cited my papers in a meaningful way, and they generally did not know me personally. I contacted four potential independent recommenders: two agreed, one declined, and one replied after we had already submitted the response. I preferred not to ask too many people simultaneously, but that also made the timeline tighter. Would I include letters in the original petition if I could do it again? I’m honestly not sure. This is only one data point, and I cannot tell whether the letters were necessary from the beginning or whether I was simply unlucky with the RFE. I would probably still follow the attorney’s recommendation to file without them if they considered the existing evidence sufficient. That saves work initially, but there is a tradeoff if an RFE ends up requiring more work and a longer wait. My experience with CHEN Overall, I’m satisfied with their service. They came across as experienced and confident, their preparation instructions were generally clear, and the drafting was professional. Their online system for messages and document uploads also helped keep everything organized. Response times varied. Sometimes I received an answer within a few hours or the same day; other times it took several days. I understand they handle many cases, and overall they were willing to clarify questions and explain their reasoning professionally. I also reviewed the scientific wording carefully. Attorneys are not specialists in every research field, so I think applicants should check technical terms and descriptions themselves. I made a few minor changes to their drafts, but no major revisions were needed. My main takeaway is to take ownership of your case. Having experienced attorneys was valuable, but preparing the research explanations, finding supporting evidence, and contacting recommenders still required substantial work from me. Within the agreed strategy, I found it helpful to keep preparing materials rather than pause everything while waiting for feedback. I’m very grateful to the people who supported my application, especially the recommenders who took the time to help. For anyone working through an RFE, I hope this experience provides another useful data point. Best of luck to everyone waiting!

EB2-NIW

Advanced degrees or exceptional ability requesting a National Interest Waiver

Total Days: 799 days
Case
2024-08-08
2026-10-16
I-140
799 Days
Nebraska Service Center: I-140
Comments
sa ak
4h
I-485 Interview for Principal Asylee — Will My Derivative Asylee Wife Be Interviewed on the Same Day?
Hi everyone, I’m wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation and can share their experience. I’m the principal asylee, and my wife was granted derivative asylum through my asylum case. We both applied for our green cards (I-485), but we have separate receipt numbers. If USCIS schedules me for an I-485 interview, will my wife usually be scheduled for an interview on the same day, or could she receive a separate interview notice or not be interviewed at all? For anyone who has gone through this situation: • Did USCIS interview you and your derivative spouse on the same day? • Did you receive separate interview notices? • Was your derivative spouse interviewed separately, or was their I-485 approved without an interview?
2
Daniel K
12h
Finally Approved!
I am so thrilled to share that my I-485 has finally been approved! Here is my complete timelind for my I-360 and I-485 process: PD: July 7, 2022 I-485 Filed: Oct 20, 2022 1st Biometrics: Apr 18, 2025 Rfe Issued (Job offer & I-693) + Biometrics Request: July 7, 2026 2nd Biometrics Completed: July 20, 2026 USCIS received RFE Rsponse: Aug 5, 2026 New Card is being produced: Oct 15, 2026 Texas Service Center I am Religious worker. My spouse was approved just one day after me, our child's case is still pending, but we are hoping to hear good news for them very soon! Thank you to everyone in this community for sharing your updates along the way. Praying thah you get your good news next!

EB4

Special immigrant juveniles, religious workers, etc

Total Days: 1461 days
Case
2022-10-20
2026-10-20
I-485
1461 Days
Texas Service Center: I-485
17
k
karo s
14h
Fiscal Year 27 prediction Month by month
This is based on math how it should move forward. It might advance more depending on how things move forward with the courts and consular approvals/denials and public charge left is final action right is filing date FY 2027 bulletin Final Action Date — projected Dates for Filing — baseline October 2026 Jan 1, 2022 (actual) Jun 1, 2022 (actual) November 2026 Jan 15, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 December 2026 Jan 28, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 January 2027 Feb 11, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 February 2027 Feb 24, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 March 2027 Mar 10, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 April 2027 Mar 24, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 May 2027 Apr 7, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 June 2027 Apr 21, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 July 2027 May 5, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 August 2027 May 18, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 September 2027 May 30, 2022 Jun 1, 2022 AI based
3
Prev
12345
Next
© 2026 Lawfully Inc.
Privacy Policy|Terms of Service|Privacy Policy (Lawfully Pro)|Terms of Service (Lawfully Pro)|Limited Scope Representation Agreement