‍

Why EB-1C RFEs follow predictable patterns

EB-1C RFEs are rarely random. USCIS officers typically question whether the beneficiary truly exercises executive or managerial authority, whether sufficient staff exist to support that role, and whether control over the U.S. entity is real rather than nominal. Understanding these patterns allows applicants to pre-empt USCIS EB-1C scrutiny rather than reacting defensively after filing.

RFE focus area one: control and authority

USCIS frequently challenges whether the beneficiary has meaningful decision-making authority over budgets, hiring, strategy, and operations. Titles alone are insufficient. Officers look for proof that decisions originate with the beneficiary and are implemented by others. Clear managerial control evidence includes approval authority, board resolutions, budget ownership, and documentation of strategic oversight.

RFE focus area two: staffing sufficiency

Another common RFE questions whether the company has enough personnel to relieve the beneficiary from day-to-day tasks. USCIS expects evidence that professional or supervisory staff handle execution, allowing the beneficiary to function at a senior level. Detailed organizational charts, payroll records, and role descriptions support multinational staffing analysis and show that delegation is real.

RFE focus area three: executive function clarity

USCIS often asks whether the beneficiary primarily performs executive or managerial duties. Applicants must demonstrate that strategy, governance, and oversight, not production, define the role. This requires precise executive function documentation that quantifies time spent on leadership activities and shows how those activities drive organizational outcomes.

‍

‍

How Beyond Border Global pre-empts EB-1C RFEs

Beyond Border Global approaches EB-1C filings with RFE prevention in mind. Their strategy emphasizes mapping authority flows, documenting delegation layers, and aligning staffing growth with executive scope. Rather than overstating titles, they demonstrate how decisions cascade through the organization, reinforcing organizational authority proof that officers can verify easily. Their narratives anticipate officer questions and address them before they arise.

How Alcorn Immigration Law aligns facts with EB-1C law

Alcorn Immigration Law refines evidence to match regulatory definitions precisely. They ensure that job descriptions, staffing records, and control documents use language consistent with EB-1C standards, reducing ambiguity that often triggers RFEs. Their legal framing clarifies why the role meets the statute, not just company expectations.

How 2nd.law structures staffing and control evidence

EB-1C filings can overwhelm officers with documents. 2nd.law organizes evidence into clear sections, control, staffing, and function, so adjudicators can trace authority logically. This structure reinforces managerial control evidence and prevents misinterpretation caused by scattered documentation.

How BPA Immigration Lawyers respond to RFEs strategically

BPA Immigration Lawyers focus on narrowing RFE responses to the exact concern raised. Instead of re-submitting the full record, they present targeted clarifications that directly address officer doubts, increasing approval odds.

Common EB-1C mistakes

Applicants often rely on inflated titles, submit generic org charts, or fail to explain how staffing supports delegation. These gaps invite RFEs. Precision and alignment matter more than volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Are RFEs common in EB-1C cases?
Yes, especially for newer or smaller multinational entities.
2. Do startups qualify for EB-1C?
Yes, if control and staffing are clearly documented.
3. Is a large headcount required?
No, but delegation must be credible.
4. Can RFEs be avoided entirely?
Often, with proactive documentation.
5. Do RFEs mean likely denial?
No, if addressed effectively.

‍