Case Summary:  

This EB-1A case involved a physician-scientist whose work spans biomedical research at the critical intersection where scientific discoveries translate into clinical decision tools. Across pediatric hematology and oncology, gene editing for hemoglobinopathies, and predictive scoring for complex coronary interventions, the client’s contributions share a common theme: making high-stakes care more predictable, more measurable, and more evidence-driven.

One outside expert summarized this impact succinctly: “[Client]’s discoveries have reshaped the field of red cell biology by elucidating a core pathogenic mechanism in β-thalassemia that is now being translated into therapeutic strategies and incorporated into clinical research and practice.”

The petition was filed on September 22nd, 2025. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence on October 8th, 2025, and ultimately approved the case on January 15th, 2026, with Premium Processing requested.

Navigating the RFE

Importantly, the RFE did not dispute:

• Authorship of scholarly articles in major peer‑reviewed journals;
• Participation as a judge of the work of others (peer review and grant review);
• The originality of the beneficiary’s research.

Instead, USCIS questioned whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary’s contributions had reached the level of “major significance”, emphasizing the need for proof of broad reliance, implementation by others, and field‑wide impact, rather than citation counts alone.

This is a common and legally precise RFE theme in research‑based EB‑1A cases.

North America Immigration Law Group (Chen Immigration Law Associates) responded by treating the RFE as a matter of record clarity rather than a merits problem. The goal was to show, in a way an adjudicator could quickly credit, that the client’s work was already serving as shared infrastructure for other researchers and clinicians, not simply a collection of publications.

By the time of response, the client’s work had accumulated 1,874 citations across 38 peer-reviewed articles, with a large majority of citations coming from independent researchers. Bibliometric analysis placed the client among the top performers in the field, including top-percentile rankings and multiple papers that ranked among the most-cited publications for their respective years.

The record also demonstrated that the broader field trusted the client’s judgment. The client had served as a peer reviewer at least 8 times for respected journals spanning cardiology and oncology, and also completed multiple grant reviews for a leading hematology professional society.

From the start, NAILG focused on translating a complex interdisciplinary research record into a straightforward showing of influence: independent uptake, clinical embedding, and peer trust. NAILG’s response made clear that the client’s contributions were not only original but also functioned as essential pillars that other researchers and clinicians rely on to advance patient care.