A three-prong RFE is normal, not a verdict.
RFEs question all three prongs; denials land on Prong 1 — put your weight where cases actually turn.
RFEs tend to interrogate all three prongs at once — the “kitchen-sink RFE” is real. But that spread does not reflect where cases are decided. Downstream, dismissals concentrate overwhelmingly on Prong 1 — the specific endeavor and its national-scale mechanism. A three-prong RFE is a routine request for corroboration, not a signal the case is lost.
RFE questions spread nearly evenly across the three prongs, while final kills at the appellate stage land on Prong 1 far more than on Prongs 2 and 3. Answering the third-prong boilerplate at the same depth as the first is effort spent where cases rarely turn.
Read a broad RFE as routine. Corroborate every point it raises, but invest the deepest work in the specific endeavor, its national-scale mechanism, and corroborated magnitude — and remember the endeavor itself cannot be reframed at this stage.
“The RFE questioned all three prongs, so the petition is in serious trouble” — or the inverse, “I’ll answer each prong at equal length.” A multi-prong RFE is ordinary, and Prong 1 is where the weight belongs.
I am preparing an EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) petition and want you to review a draft against a finding from the public record of NIW decisions. THE FINDING: A three-prong RFE is normal, not a verdict. RFEs question all three prongs; denials land on Prong 1 — put your weight where cases actually turn. YOUR TASK: I received an RFE [paste the RFE text too]. Tell me which requests go to Prong 1 and weight my response plan accordingly — remembering the endeavor itself cannot be reframed now. RULES: Work only from what I paste — do not invent facts about me. Do not predict outcomes or estimate chances. Point to specific sentences and propose concrete rewrites. --- MY DRAFT --- [Paste your draft here]