AI Prompts for Immigration Attorneys: 50 EB-1A Templates

Most attorneys using AI for immigration work start the same way: open ChatGPT, type "write a Criterion 5 argument for my client," get back something generic and unusable, and conclude that AI does not work for this.

The problem is the prompt, not the model. A thin prompt produces generic output. A structured prompt with the right legal framing, the relevant facts, and an explicit output format produces a first draft you can edit in fifteen minutes instead of building from scratch in ninety.

These 50 prompts are the version of that. They include the legal context the model needs (the regulatory standard, the criterion definition, the Kazarian framework), the case-specific facts it requires (supplied by you via the brackets), and the output format that produces something useful the first time.

The 50 prompts span ten categories across the full EB-1A, O-1A, and NIW workflow.

Sections	Category	Primary Use
1–5	Intake and Triage	Initial eligibility screen, EB-1A vs. NIW, O-1A gap analysis
6–10	Criteria Analysis	C5, C8, C3 depth, Kazarian Step 2 totality
11–17	Expert Letter Briefing	Briefing memos, first drafts, review, expert identification
18–24	Petition Narrative	Cover letter, criterion arguments, field framing
25–30	RFE Analysis	Issue triage, response drafting, filing strategy
31–33	O-1A Criteria	Awards, critical role, O-1A vs EB-1A gap
34–36	NIW Dhanasar Prongs	Prong 1, Prong 2, NIW cover letter
37–40	Expert Letter Revision	Independence, impact claims, RFE risk review
41–44	Filing Strategy	Category selection, parallel filing, checklist
45–50	Client Communications	Status updates, RFE notice, approval, denial

Before You Start: The System Prompt

These task prompts assume your AI workspace has a system prompt that establishes the legal context. Set this once. The EB-1A regulatory standard at 8 CFR 204.5(h) and the Kazarian two-step are the two things every task prompt below assumes the model already knows.

Recommended system prompt for an EB-1A project:

You are assisting an immigration attorney with EB-1A extraordinary ability petition work.

Legal standard: 8 CFR 204.5(h). The beneficiary must demonstrate extraordinary ability in their field of endeavor through sustained national or international acclaim. Step 1: demonstrate that at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) are met. Step 2 (Kazarian final merits): demonstrate, in a totality-of-evidence analysis, that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of their field.

Criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3):
C1: Less-commonly-granted prizes or awards for excellence in the field
C2: Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
C3: Published material about the beneficiary in professional or major trade publications
C4: Judging the work of others in the same or allied field
C5: Original contributions of major significance to the field
C6: Authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals or major media
C7: Artistic display of work
C8: Critical or essential role for distinguished organizations or establishments
C9: High remuneration relative to others in the field
C10: Commercial success in performing arts

Output format: One section at a time unless asked for a full draft. Cite specific exhibits by number when provided. Do not state any fact not provided in this conversation. If a fact is uncertain, note it as "to be confirmed."

This conversation may contain attorney-client privileged information. Do not use it for any purpose other than completing the requested task.

This system prompt does three things: establishes the legal standard, defines the output expectations, and includes a privilege notice. For O-1A work, substitute the O-1A criteria from 8 CFR 214.2(o).

---

Category 1: Client Intake and Eligibility Triage

These prompts run before the full petition engagement begins. Use them to assess EB-1A or O-1A fit, compare visa paths, and identify evidence gaps before the intake meeting.

Prompt 1: Initial EB-1A eligibility screen from CV

Review the following CV for EB-1A eligibility. For each of the ten criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), identify:
(a) whether the CV contains evidence that likely satisfies the criterion,
(b) the specific CV entry that supports it,
(c) a confidence rating of High / Medium / Low.

Then identify the three strongest criteria and note any that would require additional documentation to develop.

CV:
[PASTE CV TEXT]

Field of endeavor: [FIELD]

Use this before the intake call to walk in with a preliminary criteria map rather than building one from scratch during the meeting.

Prompt 2: EB-1A vs. EB-2 NIW comparison

Compare EB-1A and EB-2 NIW eligibility for the following candidate. For each path, assess:
(a) likelihood of satisfying the threshold standard,
(b) the single weakest point in the application,
(c) expected RFE risk.

Then recommend a primary path and explain the deciding factor.

Candidate summary: [2-3 sentences describing field, achievements, and career stage]
Key evidence available: [list evidence types: publications, awards, expert letters, salary data, etc.]

The output of this prompt is the single-page comparison you give the client when explaining the strategic choice between EB-1A and NIW.

Prompt 3: O-1A eligibility screen

Assess O-1A eligibility under 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii) for the following candidate. The standard requires extraordinary ability demonstrated through extraordinary achievement evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above others in the field. Three of the eight criteria must be met.

For each criterion, identify whether the candidate's evidence satisfies it and the specific supporting facts.

O-1A criteria: (1) nationally or internationally recognized prizes/awards; (2) membership requiring outstanding achievement; (3) published material about the beneficiary; (4) judging the work of others; (5) original contributions of major significance; (6) authorship in professional journals; (7) critical role for distinguished organizations; (8) high remuneration.

Candidate summary: [PASTE SUMMARY]

Prompt 4: Evidence gap list before intake meeting

Based on the following preliminary evidence list, identify what is missing for a strong EB-1A petition targeting criteria [LIST CRITERIA, e.g., C3, C5, C8].

For each missing evidence type, state:
(a) what specific documents or data would close the gap,
(b) how difficult this is typically to obtain (Easy / Moderate / Hard),
(c) whether the gap is critical or supplementary.

Evidence available:
[PASTE EVIDENCE LIST]

Field: [FIELD]
Employer: [EMPLOYER NAME AND DESCRIPTION]

Prompt 5: Criteria strength ranking

Given the following evidence summary, rank the ten EB-1A criteria from strongest to weakest for this beneficiary. For the top four criteria, write one sentence explaining the primary supporting fact. For the bottom three, note what would need to be added to develop them.

Evidence summary:
[PASTE 3-5 BULLET POINTS OF KEY EVIDENCE]

Field: [FIELD]

---

Category 2: Criteria Analysis and Evidence Gap Identification

These prompts go deeper into specific criteria. Use them when you have an evidence file and need to determine what is actually sufficient versus what looks sufficient but will fail at adjudication. The USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Part F, Chapter 2 describes what evidence quality the adjudicator applies at Step 1 and what the Step 2 totality argument must establish.

Prompt 6: Criterion 5 (original contributions) strength assessment

Analyze the following evidence for Criterion 5 (original contributions of major significance to the field) under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v).

USCIS applies this criterion by looking for evidence that the contribution has influenced the field beyond the beneficiary's own work: citations by independent researchers, adoption of the work by others, explicit recognition by practitioners, or documented impact on how the field operates.

For the evidence listed below:
(a) Assess whether each item demonstrates field-level impact or only individual achievement.
(b) Identify any evidence gap that would make this criterion the weakest link.
(c) Draft a one-paragraph assessment of current C5 strength on a scale of 1-5.

Evidence for C5:
[LIST EVIDENCE: citation count, citing papers, adoption examples, expert statements, etc.]

Prompt 7: Criterion 8 (critical role) for startup or non-traditional employers

Assess the following evidence for Criterion 8 (critical or essential role for a distinguished organization or establishment) at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

USCIS currently scrutinizes two things: (1) whether the organization is "distinguished" in its field (requires external evidence beyond the employer's own claims), and (2) whether the role was critical rather than merely important (requires evidence that the organization's results changed because of this specific person).

Evaluate the following evidence against both prongs:

Organization evidence (distinction): [DESCRIBE FUNDING, RANKINGS, CLIENTS, RECOGNITION]
Role evidence (critical): [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS, RESULTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY]

Flag which prong is weaker and what additional evidence would address it.

Prompt 8: Criterion 3 (published material) citation and quality analysis

Evaluate the following published material for Criterion 3 at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The criterion requires published material about the beneficiary in professional or major trade publications or major media.

Note: self-authored articles do not satisfy C3. The material must be about the beneficiary, not by the beneficiary.

For each item in the list:
(a) Does it qualify as professional/major trade publication or major media?
(b) Is the coverage substantively about the beneficiary, or does it merely mention them?
(c) Rate it Strong / Adequate / Weak for C3 purposes.

Publication list:
[LIST: publication name, date, type of coverage, link if available]

Prompt 9: Three-criteria coverage audit

Review the following evidence file and identify the three criteria that can be most confidently argued for this beneficiary. For each, provide:
(a) A confidence rating (High / Medium / Low) with one-sentence justification.
(b) The single piece of evidence that anchors the argument.
(c) The single piece of evidence that is currently missing and would strengthen it.

Then flag any criterion that looks strong on the surface but is likely to receive an RFE based on current USCIS adjudication patterns.

Evidence file summary:
[PASTE EVIDENCE BULLETS: awards, publications, citations, roles, salary data, expert letters, etc.]

Field: [FIELD]

Prompt 10: Kazarian Step 2 / totality argument framework (Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 9th Cir. 2010)

Draft an outline for the Kazarian Step 2 final merits argument for the following beneficiary.

The final merits argument must:
(1) establish the field and the level of the field (national or international acclaim standard),
(2) position the beneficiary relative to others in the field using specific comparative evidence,
(3) address all criteria satisfied in Step 1 as a totality, not as a list,
(4) connect to the "very top of the field" standard.

Do not draft the full argument yet — produce a structured outline with the key comparative facts that should appear in each section.

Step 1 criteria satisfied: [LIST: e.g., C3, C5, C6, C8]
Key comparative evidence: [DESCRIBE: citation percentile, salary percentile, peer recognition, awards vs. field norms]
Field definition: [SPECIFIC SUBFIELD]

---

Category 3: Expert Letter Briefing and Drafting

This is where AI provides the highest time savings in EB-1A practice. A detailed expert briefing memo (the document you send to an expert before they write their letter) typically takes an attorney 45-90 minutes to write. A good briefing prompt produces a first draft in under three minutes that takes 15-20 minutes to edit. Given that a strong EB-1A petition often requires eight to twelve expert letters, this compounds.

Prompt 11: Expert briefing memo for Criterion 5

Draft an expert briefing memo for [EXPERT NAME], [EXPERT TITLE] at [EXPERT INSTITUTION].

This memo will ask the expert to write a letter in support of [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition.

The letter should address Criterion 5: original contributions of major significance to the field under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v).

Section 1 — Context for the expert:
- Beneficiary's field of endeavor: [FIELD]
- Specific contribution(s) to address: [DESCRIBE 1-2 KEY CONTRIBUTIONS]
- Why this expert is well-positioned to evaluate this work: [EXPERT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE FIELD/CONTRIBUTION]

Section 2 — What the letter should include:
- The legal standard (contribution of major significance means it has influenced how others in the field work)
- Specific evidence to reference: [LIST EXHIBITS: citing papers, adoption examples, etc.]
- The expert's personal assessment of the contribution's impact

Section 3 — What the letter should NOT include:
- Vague praise or general statements about the beneficiary being talented
- Statements about the expert's own credentials (these belong in the expert's bio, not the letter body)
- Any facts the expert cannot independently verify

Format: 400-600 words. Professional letterhead. Subject line: "Re: EB-1A Petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME], Criterion 5: Original Contributions"

Prompt 12: Expert briefing memo for Criterion 8

Draft an expert briefing memo for [EXPERT NAME], who will write a letter addressing Criterion 8: critical or essential role for a distinguished organization.

The letter should address two legal elements:
(1) That [EMPLOYER NAME] is "distinguished" in the field — meaning it holds a position of standing, prominence, or reputation above ordinary organizations in the industry.
(2) That [BENEFICIARY NAME] held a "critical or essential" role — meaning the organization's results changed measurably because of this specific person's contributions.

Facts about the organization for the expert to reference:
[DESCRIBE: funding milestones, rankings, notable clients, industry recognition, market position]

Facts about the beneficiary's role for the expert to reference:
[DESCRIBE: specific deliverables attributable to beneficiary, before/after comparisons, team or project size, decisions made]

The expert's perspective: [DESCRIBE: how the expert knows the beneficiary's work, what their independent vantage point is]

Format: 400-600 words. The expert is not an attorney — do not use regulatory language they would have to read and understand before writing. Translate the legal standard into plain descriptive questions.

Prompt 13: Full expert letter draft from briefing notes

Draft a full expert letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition.

Expert: [NAME], [TITLE], [INSTITUTION]
Criteria addressed: [LIST: e.g., C5, C6]
Relationship to beneficiary: [DESCRIBE]

Key facts to include (use these only — do not add facts not listed here):
[BULLET LIST OF FACTS: specific contributions, citation counts, adoption examples, comparative framing, expert's view of significance]

Exhibits to cite:
[EXHIBIT LIST: e.g., Exhibit 7: citation analysis; Exhibit 8: paper on transformer interpretability]

Format requirements:
- Subject line references the specific criteria
- Opens by establishing the expert's credentials and relationship to the field (not to the beneficiary)
- Body addresses each criterion with specific evidence
- Closes with a definitive expert opinion, not a hedge
- Length: 500-800 words
- Professional letterhead format

Prompt 14: Expert letter review checklist

Review the following expert letter draft against the current EB-1A adjudication standard for Criterion [CRITERION NUMBER].

Check for each of the following and flag any failure:

Substantive:
- Does the letter address field-level impact, or only the beneficiary's individual achievement?
- Are all factual claims specific and verifiable?
- Are exhibit references present where facts are claimed?
- Does the expert's stated position give them credibility to evaluate this contribution?
- Is there a definitive expert opinion, or only neutral observation?

Format:
- Subject line references the criterion
- Expert credentials established in opening paragraph
- No vague superlatives without specific supporting facts ("one of the best" requires "out of X practitioners in Y field")

Flag any sentence that sounds like AI-generated boilerplate or generic praise. Flag any claim that USCIS is likely to send an RFE for.

Expert letter:
[PASTE LETTER TEXT]

Prompt 15: Strengthening a weak expert letter

The following expert letter is too vague to adequately support Criterion [CRITERION NUMBER] for an EB-1A petition. Rewrite the weakest section to be more specific and evidence-based.

Do not add facts that are not in the original letter or in the facts I provide below. Only work with what exists.

Additional facts I can add:
[LIST 3-5 SPECIFIC FACTS: citation counts, specific contributions, named institutions, comparative framing]

Exhibits available to cite: [EXHIBIT LIST]

Weak section to rewrite:
[PASTE WEAK SECTION TEXT]

Target: the rewritten section should include at least one specific number, one named external source, and one explicitly comparative statement about the beneficiary's standing relative to others in the field.

Prompt 16: Multi-criterion expert briefing

This expert letter will address three criteria: [C5, C8, C6 — or your selection].

Draft a briefing memo that explains to [EXPERT NAME] what each criterion requires and what specific facts from their knowledge they should address for each one.

For C[X]: [describe the specific contribution and what the expert should say about it]
For C[Y]: [describe the role and what the expert should say about it]
For C[Z]: [describe the publications/citations and what the expert should say about them]

Note to include in the briefing: the letter should read as three distinct evidentiary sections, each with a clear heading referencing the criterion, not as a general character reference.

Prompt 17: Expert identification prompt

Based on the following description of [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s work, suggest the types of experts who would be most credible for EB-1A Criterion 5 letters.

A credible expert for C5 should:
- Be independent of the beneficiary's employer
- Have a recognized standing in the same or adjacent subfield
- Be able to speak to the specific contribution's impact from a practitioner perspective, not just as a colleague

Beneficiary's key contribution: [DESCRIBE CONTRIBUTION IN 2-3 SENTENCES]
Field: [FIELD AND SUBFIELD]
Key institutions or organizations in this field: [LIST IF KNOWN]

For each expert type, suggest how the attorney might identify and approach specific individuals (conference chairs, journal editors, former collaborators at other institutions, etc.).

---

Category 4: Cover Letter and Petition Narrative Sections

These prompts draft substantive legal argument sections. They require more specific input than the category 1 prompts and produce output that the attorney edits, not files directly.

Prompt 18: EB-1A cover letter opening

Draft the opening two paragraphs of an EB-1A petition cover letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

The opening should:
(1) State the legal standard — extraordinary ability in [FIELD] with sustained national or international acclaim — without hedging it.
(2) State which criteria are being claimed (list [3-5 criteria by number and one-word label]).
(3) Make the case for why this specific beneficiary belongs at the top of their field in 2-3 specific sentences.

Do not use "distinguished," "remarkable," "groundbreaking," or any superlative without a specific fact to support it.

Beneficiary: [NAME]
Field: [FIELD]
Criteria claimed: [LIST]
Most striking fact: [THE ONE FACT THAT MOST STRONGLY ESTABLISHES EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY]

Prompt 19: Criterion 5 argument section

Draft the Criterion 5 argument section for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition cover letter.

Legal standard: 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(v). Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. USCIS looks for evidence that the work has influenced how others in the field operate.

Evidence to argue:
[LIST ALL EVIDENCE: specific papers, citation counts, citing authors/institutions, industry adoption examples, expert statements about impact]

Exhibit references:
[e.g., Exhibit 7: citation analysis report; Exhibit 8: paper; Exhibit 9: letter from Professor X]

Format:
- Open with the strongest fact (citation count, adoption rate, or expert characterization)
- Develop 2-3 evidence threads with exhibit citations
- Close with the field-level impact argument (not a summary of the facts just stated)
- Length: 350-500 words

Prompt 20: Criterion 8 argument section

Draft the Criterion 8 argument section for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s petition.

This criterion has two required elements. Address both explicitly:

Element 1 — Organization distinction:
Evidence of distinction for [EMPLOYER NAME]: [DESCRIBE: funding, market position, recognition, notable clients or products]

Element 2 — Critical or essential role:
Evidence of critical role for [BENEFICIARY NAME]: [DESCRIBE: specific deliverables, results attributable to beneficiary, scope of responsibility, before/after comparisons]

Exhibit references: [LIST]

Format: Two clearly labeled subsections. Element 1 first. Do not conflate the two elements. Length: 300-450 words.

Prompt 21: Kazarian Step 2 final merits argument

Draft the Kazarian Step 2 final merits argument section for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition.

This section must argue that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of their field, taken as a whole, not just that they have satisfied three individual criteria.

Framework:
(1) Define the field of endeavor and establish the relevant competitive population.
(2) Position the beneficiary relative to that population using comparative evidence.
(3) Address each satisfied criterion as one thread of a cumulative argument, not as a stand-alone item.
(4) Close with the "totality" conclusion — that the combination of evidence, viewed together, establishes the very-top standard.

Input:
Field: [FIELD — be specific about subfield]
Criteria satisfied: [LIST with one-sentence evidence summary per criterion]
Comparative evidence: [DESCRIBE: citation percentile, salary relative to field, award selectivity, recognition by senior practitioners]

Length: 500-700 words. This section carries significant adjudicative weight — do not pad it with restatements of the criteria sections above. Every sentence should add new comparative framing.

Prompt 22: O-1A cover letter framing

Draft the introductory framing section of an O-1A petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

The O-1A standard under 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(ii) is extraordinary ability evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered. Unlike EB-1A, O-1A does not require the Kazarian final merits determination.

Opening argument should:
(1) State the legal standard.
(2) Name the three or four criteria being claimed.
(3) Make the core comparative argument in three sentences maximum.

Beneficiary: [NAME]
Field: [FIELD]
Criteria to claim: [LIST]
Strongest comparative fact: [THE FACT THAT MOST CLEARLY PUTS THEM ABOVE PEERS]

Prompt 23: Field of endeavor statement for niche technical fields

Draft a one-paragraph field of endeavor statement for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

The field of endeavor statement defines the competitive population USCIS will use to evaluate whether this person has "risen to the very top." It should be:
- Specific enough to be meaningful (not "technology" or "science")
- Broad enough that "very top" is not a population of five people
- Supported by the evidence actually available in this petition

Beneficiary's work: [DESCRIBE IN 2-3 SENTENCES]
Best-supported criteria: [LIST]
Available comparative evidence: [DESCRIBE: citation analysis scope, salary survey population, award nomination pool]

Avoid field definitions that are so narrow they make the criterion of "top" trivially easy and so invite USCIS skepticism.

Prompt 24: Sustained acclaim argument from evidence history

Draft a short sustained acclaim section for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s petition.

"Sustained" national or international acclaim requires that the recognition has been consistent over time, not a single spike. USCIS has recently scrutinized petitions where all the evidence concentrates in one period.

Evidence timeline:
[LIST EVIDENCE BY YEAR: e.g., "2019: published paper X (Exhibit 3); 2020: award Y (Exhibit 4); 2022: cited by 47 independent groups (Exhibit 7); 2024: appointed to [DISTINGUISHED ROLE] (Exhibit 9)"]

Draft a 2-paragraph narrative showing the arc of recognition over time, emphasizing that acclaim has continued and deepened rather than being a single moment.

---

Category 5: RFE Analysis and Response Drafting

RFEs are where AI time savings are most visible. An RFE response can run 50-100 pages with exhibits. The argument section alone takes an experienced attorney several hours to structure from scratch. These prompts structure the analysis and draft the opening argument sections. For context on what USCIS is currently challenging most often, see the AAO EB-1A decisions from 2024-2025 and EB-1A evidence architecture patterns on this site. For raw approval and RFE rate data, see the USCIS immigration forms data portal.

Prompt 25: RFE issue identification and triage

Analyze the following RFE and identify:
(1) Which criteria are being questioned and why.
(2) Whether the RFE is challenging evidence sufficiency (we have evidence but the officer found it weak) or evidence existence (the officer claims we submitted nothing).
(3) The single most important argument to win. RFE responses fail when attorneys treat every issue as equally urgent.
(4) New evidence types that would directly address each challenge.

RFE text: [PASTE RFE TEXT]
Original evidence submitted for each challenged criterion: [BRIEF SUMMARY]

Prompt 26: Criterion-specific RFE response argument

Draft the legal argument section of an RFE response for the following Criterion [NUMBER] challenge.

The RFE states: [PASTE RELEVANT RFE LANGUAGE]

Legal rebuttal approach:
The standard under [8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(x)] requires [DESCRIBE STANDARD]. The officer's challenge misapplies the standard because [DESCRIBE THE LEGAL ERROR OR EVIDENTIARY GAP].

New or supplemental evidence being submitted:
[DESCRIBE EACH NEW EXHIBIT: what it is and how it addresses the specific RFE challenge]

Draft a 300-450 word legal argument section that:
(1) Acknowledges the officer's concern without conceding it,
(2) Restates the correct legal standard,
(3) Argues that the record as a whole, including new exhibits, satisfies the standard.

Do not draft generic RFE language. Argue this specific record.

Prompt 27: Step 2 / final merits RFE response

Draft a response to the following RFE that challenges the Kazarian Step 2 final merits determination.

The RFE states: [PASTE STEP 2 CHALLENGE LANGUAGE]

This type of RFE typically reflects one of three failures in the original petition:
(a) The Step 2 argument summarized the criteria without making a comparative argument.
(b) The comparative evidence (citation percentile, salary data, award selectivity) was thin or absent.
(c) The field of endeavor was defined too broadly, making "very top" hard to demonstrate.

Identify which failure applies here. Then draft a 400-600 word Step 2 argument using the following comparative evidence:

[DESCRIBE ALL COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE: citation rank, salary relative to field, award selectivity, peer recognition, senior practitioner statements]

This argument should make a single, clear claim: [BENEFICIARY NAME] has risen to the very top of [SPECIFIC SUBFIELD], and here is the comparative evidence that establishes that position.

Prompt 28: Additional evidence strategy for RFE

Based on the following RFE, identify the most efficient evidence-gathering strategy for responding within the response window.

RFE issued: [DATE]
Response deadline: [DATE]
Available time: [X weeks]

RFE challenges: [SUMMARIZE 2-3 KEY CHALLENGES]

For each challenge:
(a) What is the fastest type of evidence to obtain that directly addresses the officer's concern?
(b) Is this evidence the beneficiary already has but was not submitted, or does it need to be created (e.g., new expert letters)?
(c) Estimated effort to obtain: Low / Medium / High.

Prioritize by impact. We cannot chase every issue equally in a 3-week response window.

Prompt 29: RFE response cover letter

Draft the cover letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s RFE response.

The cover letter should:
(1) Reference the RFE receipt number and response deadline.
(2) State, in one sentence, what the RFE challenged.
(3) State, in two sentences, how the response addresses each challenge.
(4) Include a table of contents for the response package.

Response contents:
[LIST: (1) legal argument sections for each criterion, (2) new exhibits with descriptions, (3) updated expert letters if applicable]

RFE receipt number: [NUMBER]
Deadline: [DATE]
Length: Cover letter should be under one page. The legal arguments follow in the attached brief.

Prompt 30: Post-RFE case strategy if denial risk is high

We received an RFE that suggests significant evidentiary gaps. Before drafting the response, I need a strategic assessment.

RFE summary: [DESCRIBE 2-3 MAIN CHALLENGES]
Original petition strengths: [LIST]
Available new evidence: [LIST WHAT IS OBTAINABLE IN THE RESPONSE WINDOW]

Assess:
(1) Is the case more likely to be approved or denied after the best possible RFE response?
(2) If denial risk is high, what are the alternative paths (NIW, O-1A, request for reconsideration, appeal)?
(3) Is there an argument for requesting a telephonic interview or other procedural step?
(4) What should I tell the client about case prospects at this stage?

Be direct. If the case is weak, say so. The purpose of this assessment is to help me advise the client accurately, not to produce optimistic language.

---

Section 8: O-1A Criterion Analysis

O-1A petitions share several criteria with EB-1A but differ in two important structural ways: no Kazarian final merits requirement, and the evidentiary standard is "extraordinary achievement" rather than "sustained national or international acclaim." These three prompts address O-1A-specific argument needs, including a direct O-1A vs. EB-1A comparison that attorneys find useful when a client qualifies for both.

Prompt 31: O-1A Awards and Recognition

You are an immigration attorney assistant preparing an O-1A petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME], a [FIELD OF WORK] professional.

O-1A Criterion 1 requires evidence of receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of expertise.

Evidence available: [LIST AWARDS: name, year, granting organization, scope (national/international), competitiveness]

Draft a 250-300 word Criterion 1 argument for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s O-1A petition that:
- Identifies the scope of each award (national vs international)
- Addresses the competitiveness of the selection process where documented
- Distinguishes from employer-specific recognition
- Cites each exhibit by number

Exhibit references: [EXHIBIT NUMBERS]

Prompt 32: Critical Role in Distinguished Organization

You are an immigration attorney assistant preparing an O-1A petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

O-1A Criterion 7 requires evidence of performance of a critical or essential role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation.

Evidence available:
- Employer: [EMPLOYER NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF REPUTATION — e.g., "Fortune 500 company with $X billion revenue" or "Series C startup that has raised $X in VC funding"]
- Role title: [TITLE]
- Scope of role: [DESCRIBE: budget responsibility, headcount managed, strategic importance]
- Evidence of role criticality: [LETTERS, ORG CHARTS, BOARD MATERIALS, etc.]

Draft a 250-300 word Criterion 7 argument that:
- Establishes the organization's distinguished reputation with specific evidence
- Explains why the beneficiary's role is critical (not merely senior)
- Avoids the common RFE trigger of describing seniority without establishing criticality
- Cites exhibits by number

Exhibit references: [EXHIBIT NUMBERS]

Prompt 33: O-1A vs EB-1A Criteria Gap Analysis

You are an immigration attorney assistant reviewing a petition candidate for both O-1A and EB-1A eligibility.

Beneficiary: [NAME]
Field: [FIELD]
Available evidence: [SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE TYPES]

Analyze the same evidence against both O-1A and EB-1A criteria:
1. Which O-1A criteria (1-8) are met or potentially met by a preponderance
2. Which EB-1A criteria (1-10) are met or potentially met
3. Key differences in the evidentiary standard that affect eligibility
4. Which petition type has the stronger case and why

Note: O-1A requires only 3 of 8 criteria (or a comparable standard for extraordinary achievement); EB-1A requires only 3 of 10 criteria but adds the Kazarian final merits determination.

---

Section 9: NIW Dhanasar Prong Analysis

EB-2 NIW petitions are governed by the three-prong test from Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Each prong requires specific evidentiary framing that differs from the EB-1A criteria approach. These prompts address each prong independently and the cover letter introduction that ties them together.

Prompt 34: Dhanasar Prong 1: Substantial Merit and National Importance

You are an immigration attorney assistant preparing an EB-2 NIW petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME], a [TITLE/FIELD] with expertise in [SPECIFIC AREA].

Dhanasar Prong 1 requires showing that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.

Beneficiary's proposed endeavor: [DESCRIBE IN 2-3 SENTENCES — what they will do in the US, in what field, addressing what problem or opportunity]

Evidence supporting national importance: [DESCRIBE: government funding in the area, national security relevance, economic impact, public health relevance, educational system relevance, etc.]

Draft a 300-350 word Prong 1 argument that:
- Defines the proposed endeavor specifically (not vaguely)
- Establishes substantial merit with evidence, not assertion
- Establishes national importance: why this work matters at a national scale, not just to the employer or the field
- Cites exhibits where available, otherwise frames the argument for the attorney to add exhibit citations

Exhibit references: [EXHIBIT NUMBERS if available]

Prompt 35: Dhanasar Prong 2: Well Positioned

You are an immigration attorney assistant preparing an EB-2 NIW petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

Dhanasar Prong 2 requires showing that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

Beneficiary qualifications:
- Education: [DEGREES AND INSTITUTIONS]
- Publications: [NUMBER, VENUES, CITATION COUNT if available]
- Patents: [IF ANY]
- Industry recognition: [AWARDS, INVITED TALKS, EDITORIAL ROLES]
- Track record in the specific endeavor area: [DESCRIBE PRIOR WORK]

Draft a 300-350 word Prong 2 argument that:
- Connects each qualification directly to the proposed endeavor (not general "accomplished researcher" framing)
- Establishes that the beneficiary has specific expertise, not just general credentials
- Identifies the track record that shows they have already made progress on this type of work
- Addresses why the beneficiary (rather than others in the field) is particularly suited

Exhibit references: [EXHIBIT NUMBERS]

Prompt 36: NIW Cover Letter Section

You are an immigration attorney drafting the cover letter section for an EB-2 NIW petition for [BENEFICIARY NAME].

The petition includes:
- Prong 1 argument: [BRIEF SUMMARY — e.g., "addresses AI safety, substantial national importance for economic competitiveness"]
- Prong 2 argument: [BRIEF SUMMARY — e.g., "MIT PhD, 400+ citations, prior NSF funding in the exact area"]
- Prong 3 argument: [BRIEF SUMMARY — e.g., "no employer sponsor available in this specialized emerging area"]
- Key exhibits: [LIST EXHIBIT NUMBERS AND TYPES]

Draft a 400-450 word cover letter introduction section that:
- States the petition type and beneficiary name
- Summarizes the proposed endeavor in 2-3 sentences
- Explains how the three prongs are met at the summary level
- Sets up the detailed arguments that follow
- Uses a confident but not hyperbolic tone appropriate for USCIS

Do not overstate. "Groundbreaking" and "revolutionary" are red flags for adjudicators. Use specific evidence-based language.

---

Section 10: Expert Letter Revision Requests

These four prompts handle the revision stage of the expert letter process. The most common problem is not that experts write bad letters; it is that they write letters that omit the specific legal elements USCIS requires. A good revision request identifies exactly what is missing and provides the language the expert can adopt.

Prompt 37: Request Expert to Add Independence Statement

You are an immigration attorney reviewing an expert letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition from [EXPERT NAME], [EXPERT TITLE] at [EXPERT INSTITUTION].

The letter currently describes the beneficiary's work well but does not clearly establish the expert's independence. USCIS RFEs increasingly challenge expert letters that lack explicit independence statements.

Draft a revision request email to [EXPERT NAME] asking them to add an independence statement. The email should:
- Thank them for their time
- Explain why the independence statement is needed (one sentence — "USCIS adjudicators have increasingly required explicit independence statements to assess the letter's objectivity")
- Specify exactly what to add: a sentence or two early in the letter stating that [EXPERT NAME] has no employment, supervisory, or collaborative relationship with [BENEFICIARY NAME], and that their awareness of [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s work came through [the published literature / conference presentations / independent review of the work]
- Keep the email to under 200 words

Beneficiary name: [NAME]
Expert relationship context: [e.g., "They know each other from the same conference community but have never co-authored or worked at the same institution"]

Prompt 38: Strengthen Field Impact Claims

You are an immigration attorney reviewing an expert letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition. The letter is from [EXPERT NAME] and addresses Criterion 5 (original contributions of major significance).

Current problem: The letter describes the contribution accurately but says the work "has been well received" rather than establishing field-level impact. "Well received" does not meet the Criterion 5 standard.

Facts available for stronger claims:
- [LIST: citation numbers, adoption by other researchers, methodological changes in the field, specific researchers who used the method]

Draft a revision note to the expert specifying:
1. Why "well received" is insufficient (the standard requires impact on others' research practice)
2. The specific stronger claim: [e.g., "Three research groups at [Institution A, B, C] adopted this method as a baseline in their own systems"]
3. The exact language revision you are requesting (write the replacement sentences)
4. Any additional factual detail the expert should include if they can substantiate it

Keep the note professional and specific. The expert should receive clear instructions, not a general ask to "strengthen it."

Prompt 39: Request Letter for New Criterion

You are an immigration attorney requesting a supplemental expert letter for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition. The petition has expert letters for Criterion 5 but needs evidence for Criterion 8 (critical role in distinguished organizations).

Draft a request letter to [NEW EXPERT NAME], [TITLE] at [ORGANIZATION], who is in a position to speak to [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s critical role at [EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION].

The letter should:
- Explain the EB-1A Criterion 8 standard in plain language (critical or essential role for an organization with a distinguished reputation)
- Specify exactly what facts USCIS needs: (1) the organization's distinguished reputation, (2) evidence the role was critical not merely senior, (3) the expert's basis for this assessment
- Provide the suggested letter structure (introduction/credential, organization description, role description with specific evidence of criticality, signature)
- Be respectful of the expert's time — offer to provide a draft for their review and signature

Expert name: [NAME]
Organization and their connection to beneficiary: [DESCRIBE]
Specific evidence of critical role to reference: [DESCRIBE]

Prompt 40: Evaluate Letter Against RFE Risk

You are an immigration attorney assistant reviewing an expert letter before submission. Your task is to identify elements that are likely to trigger an RFE or draw officer scrutiny.

Letter text: [PASTE FULL LETTER TEXT]
Criterion being supported: [CRITERION NUMBER AND NAME]
Known weaknesses in the petition for this criterion: [DESCRIBE IF ANY]

Review the letter and identify:
1. Independence concerns: Does the letter adequately establish the expert's independence from the beneficiary? Does it disclose prior collaboration or employment?
2. Specificity gaps: Are claims specific (with evidence) or generic (character reference style)?
3. Standard alignment: Does the letter use the correct legal standard ("original contributions of major significance," "critical role," etc.) or does it use vague characterizations?
4. Verifiability: Are claims the expert makes about impact verifiable with exhibit evidence?
5. Risk rating: Low / Medium / High RFE risk, with specific reasons

For each issue found, suggest the specific revision needed.

---

Section 11: Priority Date and Filing Strategy

These prompts address the strategic decisions that sit outside the petition brief itself: category selection, parallel filing, RFE response options, and the filing checklist. The priority date situation for India-born and China-born nationals makes category selection consequential in ways it was not ten years ago. Prompt 41 handles that analysis directly.

Prompt 41: Visa Category Selection Analysis

You are an immigration attorney assistant. Based on the information below, analyze which employment-based immigrant visa category presents the best path forward and why.

Beneficiary background:
- Citizenship: [COUNTRY]
- Current status: [e.g., H-1B, F-1 OPT, L-1]
- Education: [DEGREES]
- Field: [FIELD]
- Years of experience: [NUMBER]
- Publications: [SUMMARY]
- Awards: [SUMMARY]
- Current employer willing to sponsor: [YES/NO]
- Priority date if any: [DATE or NONE]

Analyze:
1. EB-1A eligibility: which criteria appear met, overall case strength
2. EB-2 NIW eligibility: Dhanasar prong assessment
3. EB-1B eligibility (if in academia or research): outstanding researcher standard
4. Priority date impact: for [COUNTRY] nationals, which category has the most favorable current or projected cutoff

Recommendation: which category to file, in which order if a parallel strategy makes sense, and the key evidence gaps to address before filing.

Prompt 42: Parallel Petition Strategy Memo

You are an immigration attorney drafting a client memo for [BENEFICIARY NAME] explaining the parallel petition strategy recommended for their case.

Strategy: File EB-1A and EB-2 NIW simultaneously
Reason for parallel: [DESCRIBE: e.g., EB-1A is a stronger case but higher bar; NIW is a safety net in case EB-1A receives a borderline RFE]
Priority date situation: [e.g., India-born: EB-2 NIW has a significant backlog; EB-1A is current — discuss implications]

Draft a 350-400 word client-facing memo that:
- Explains what each petition is in plain language (no jargon)
- Explains why both are being filed
- Explains the priority date situation and what it means for when they could apply for their green card
- Describes the timeline and what actions the client needs to take
- Uses plain English, not legal citations (this is for the client)

Avoid: legal jargon, Latin, acronym overload, any language that overpromises on outcomes.

Prompt 43: RFE Decision Memo

You are an immigration attorney assistant helping evaluate an RFE response strategy.

RFE issued on: [DATE]
Response deadline: [DATE]
RFE basis: [SUMMARIZE THE OFFICER'S CONCERNS]

Available additional evidence: [LIST WHAT CAN BE OBTAINED]
Evidence gaps that cannot be filled: [LIST WHAT CANNOT BE ADDRESSED]

Current case strengths: [LIST]

Analyze the three response options:
1. Respond fully: probability assessment, key evidence to lead with, risks
2. Respond partially: which arguments to prioritize if not everything can be addressed
3. Withdraw and refile: circumstances under which this makes sense, timing implications

Recommendation with reasoning. Flag any issues where attorney judgment is required beyond this analysis.

Prompt 44: Petition Checklist Generator

You are an immigration attorney assistant generating a filing checklist for an EB-1A petition.

Beneficiary: [NAME]
Selected criteria: [LIST CRITERIA NUMBERS — e.g., C4 (judging), C5 (contributions), C6 (scholarly articles), C8 (critical role), C9 (high salary)]
Expert letters committed: [LIST EXPERTS AND WHICH CRITERIA EACH COVERS]
Exhibits compiled so far: [LIST EXHIBIT NUMBERS AND TYPES ALREADY IN FILE]
Filing target: [DATE]

Generate a complete filing checklist organized by:
1. Required USCIS forms (I-140, G-1145 if applicable, etc.) with current filing fees
2. Evidence checklist by criterion (what is present, what is missing)
3. Expert letters (who is committed, who is outstanding, what each letter must cover)
4. Supporting documents (biographical exhibit, translation requirements, etc.)
5. Pre-filing review tasks (attorney review of each criterion argument, citation verification, etc.)
6. Filing logistics (where to file, premium processing eligibility, concurrent I-485 if applicable)

Flag any items where attorney review is required before checking complete.

---

Section 12: Client Communication Templates

Six templates for the client communications that consume attorney time throughout the petition process. These are particularly useful for associates and paralegals drafting communications for partner review. Fill in the brackets, adjust the tone where the firm's voice differs, and review before sending.

Prompt 45: Case Status Update Email

Draft a client case status update email for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s EB-1A petition.

Current status: [e.g., "I-140 filed on [DATE], currently pending at the Nebraska Service Center"]
USCIS processing time for this category: [e.g., "Current published processing time is 8-12 months; your case has been pending 4 months"]
Next steps: [LIST: e.g., "Monitor receipt notice, respond immediately to any RFE, prepare priority date documents"]
Action required from client: [DESCRIBE or "None at this time"]

Write a 200-250 word status email that:
- States the current status clearly
- Sets realistic expectations on timing
- Explains what the next milestone is
- Tells the client exactly what they need to do (or explicitly that no action is needed right now)
- Closes with contact information for questions

Tone: professional, reassuring without overpromising, direct.

Prompt 46: RFE Receipt Notification

Draft a client notification email for [BENEFICIARY NAME] explaining that a Request for Evidence has been received.

RFE details:
- Received: [DATE]
- Response deadline: [DATE]
- General basis: [ONE SENTENCE — e.g., "The officer has requested additional evidence regarding Criterion 5 and the final merits determination"]
- Attorney action: [e.g., "We are reviewing the RFE and will send you a detailed response plan within 5 business days"]
- Client action needed: [e.g., "Please send updated citation statistics and the signed expert letter from Dr. [NAME] as soon as possible"]

Write a 200-250 word email that:
- Explains what an RFE is (one sentence — do not assume the client knows)
- States the deadline clearly
- Explains what your firm is doing
- States exactly what you need from the client and by when
- Does not catastrophize — RFEs are common; explain that this is a normal part of the process

Tone: calm, specific, action-oriented.

Prompt 47: Petition Approval Notification

Draft a client notification email for [BENEFICIARY NAME] announcing the approval of their I-140 EB-1A petition.

Approval details:
- Approval date: [DATE]
- Next steps for client: [DESCRIBE based on situation — e.g., if abroad: NVC process; if in US: priority date monitoring for I-485]
- Priority date situation: [e.g., "For [COUNTRY] nationals, the current EB-1 priority date is [DATE], meaning you can file your I-485 [now / once the date becomes current]"]

Write a 200-250 word email that:
- Delivers the good news clearly in the first sentence
- Explains what the approval means
- Sets expectations for next steps
- Explains priority dates in plain language if relevant
- Invites questions

Tone: warm, professional, clear on next steps.

Prompt 48: Evidence Request Letter

Draft a client evidence request for [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s [EB-1A / NIW / O-1A] petition.

Evidence needed: [LIST SPECIFIC ITEMS — e.g., "original award certificate for the NSF CAREER grant, employment verification letter from supervisor on company letterhead, three most recent salary statements showing current compensation, translated copy of the IEEE Senior Member certificate"]

Deadline for evidence: [DATE — set 2-3 weeks before filing target to allow time for review]

Write a client letter that:
- Lists each required item on a separate numbered line
- Explains why each item is needed in plain language (one sentence each)
- Specifies the format required (original, certified copy, translated, PDF)
- States the deadline clearly
- Provides a simple checklist the client can mark off

Avoid legal jargon. The client may not know what "certified copy" means — explain it.

Prompt 49: Expert Introduction Email

Draft an introduction email for [BENEFICIARY NAME] to send to a potential expert recommender, [EXPERT NAME], [EXPERT TITLE] at [EXPERT INSTITUTION].

Context: [BENEFICIARY NAME] met [EXPERT NAME] at [CONFERENCE/VENUE] and [EXPERT NAME] is familiar with [BENEFICIARY NAME]'s work through [describe]. This is the initial ask.

The email should:
- Reference the connection or their familiarity with the work (one sentence)
- Explain that [BENEFICIARY NAME] is preparing an EB-1A petition for extraordinary ability
- Briefly explain what an expert letter involves (2-3 sentences in plain language — not a legal brief)
- Ask if [EXPERT NAME] would be willing to provide a letter of support
- Keep it to under 200 words
- Offer to provide more detail and a draft outline if they agree

Tone: respectful, professional, not presumptuous. This is an ask, not an assignment.

Prompt 50: Denial Explanation Email

Draft a client communication for [BENEFICIARY NAME] explaining an I-140 denial.

Denial details:
- Denial date: [DATE]
- Stated basis: [SUMMARIZE USCIS DENIAL REASONS — e.g., "Officer found criteria 1 and 5 not met; insufficient evidence of wide acclaim"]
- Appeal options: [e.g., "Motion to Reconsider (MTR), Motion to Reopen (MTO), or AAO appeal within 33 days"]
- Attorney assessment: [e.g., "We believe the Criterion 5 finding is challengeable based on the citation evidence"]

Write a 300-350 word email that:
- States the denial directly (do not bury the news)
- Explains what the denial means in plain language
- Summarizes the stated basis without legal jargon
- Explains the available options and their timelines
- States your recommendation and why
- Requests a call or meeting to discuss

Tone: direct, honest, not defensive, focused on what can be done next.

---

How to Get the Most From These Prompts

Two habits determine whether these prompts produce usable output or require heavy editing.

Always specify the exhibit. Generic prompts produce generic output. Every prompt that asks the model to argue a criterion should include specific exhibit references and actual facts. "Exhibit 7 shows 214 citations" is better than "strong citation record."

Read the first output critically, then iterate. The first draft often gets the structure right and the emphasis wrong. A second prompt that says "the second paragraph is too hedged: make the comparative claim more direct" takes thirty seconds and is usually sufficient. Treat these as a dialogue with a drafting assistant, not a one-shot request.

For tool selection and confidentiality setup before using any of these prompts with client information, see Best AI Tools for Immigration Attorneys: 2026 Comparison. For how USCIS now uses its own AI tools to review your filing, see USCIS AI Adjudication: Preparing EB-1A Petitions in 2026. For the full context on how AI fits into immigration practice — ethics, BAA requirements, and workflow across all visa categories — see the AI in legal practice hub.

Immigration Copilot embeds a structured version of this workflow into the petition process: document classification against EB-1A criteria, evidence gap analysis, criterion-by-criterion drafting from uploaded exhibits, and expert letter briefing generation from your client's knowledge base. The prompts above are the version you run yourself in a general AI tool. The product is the version where the evidence file is already loaded.