AI Prompts for Immigration Attorneys: 30 EB-1A and O-1 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 30 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.

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

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.

---

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.

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.