Case Processing

alro dec2021
1h
I485 Vawa
Inquiry U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records confirm that your constituent’s case is pending at the National Benefits Center (NBC) at this time. USCIS is committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely and efficient manner while also complying with all relevant directives. While the processing steps for most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage of cases involve unresolved issues that may result in adjudication delays. Although your constituent’s file is still physically located at the NBC, the scheduling of your constituent's I-485 interview and the decision to expedite the case is within the jurisdiction of the field Office (Atlanta Field Office). Once the field office schedules this case for an interview, your constituent will receive an interview notice stating the date and time to appear for the scheduled interview. Once the interview is scheduled, the NBC will then forward the file to the field office. Once further action is taken, a notice will be sent to the address on file.
1
J
Jay Chan
17h
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

Días totales: 799 días
Case
2024-08-08
2026-10-16
I-140
799 días
Nebraska Service Center: I-140
1
Anterior
12345
Siguiente
© 2026 Lawfully Inc.
Política de privacidad|Términos de servicio|Política de privacidad (Lawfully Pro)|Términos de servicio (Lawfully Pro)|Acuerdo de representación de alcance limitado