Hey guys,
I started working on my application Oct 2025, submitted in January, got the RFE around late February... felt very disappointed, lost hope, was already depressed, plus all the stuff going on... ended up writing my response in the last day and submitted 6 minutes before the deadline in late May... and it just got approved! 🥳
My main mistake was thinking that referring to my job as the endeavor would be helpful, but it completely screwed it up (link below). I had considered it to be my immediate near future goal, so using it as the proposal made sense... but we're writing an endeavor!!! The endeavor can't be limited to an employer, job type or region!! 😵💫
My neurodivergent brain helped me see a pattern in my knowledge acquisition and publications over time out of the blue, so I explained in a brief letter that I reframed my endeavor, not focusing on the short-term goals of my job, but as a long-term proposal, using my current job as an example. I think I did a very good job stating how my expertise developed, leading me to the proposed endeavor...
What helped me the most was not trying to describe my case as “I do X at my current job.” Instead, I framed it as: “Over time, my work has developed toward a broader professional endeavor in the national interest, and my current job is one concrete place where that endeavor is being carried out.”
I basically looked at my experience as a timeline. I asked myself: what was I learning at each stage, what problems was I trying to solve, and how did each stage naturally lead to the next one?
For me, the pattern was something like this:
First, I developed the technical foundation. This was the stage where I built the core scientific, analytical, and methodological skills in my field. I used degrees, early research, publications, presentations, and technical work to show that I was not randomly claiming expertise... I had been building it for years.
Second, I moved from general technical knowledge into a more specialized problem area. This was where I showed that my work became more focused and that my publications or projects were connected by a common theme. I did not present each paper or project as an isolated accomplishment. I explained how each one represented a step in the development of my expertise.
Third, I connected that specialized expertise to real-world implementation. This was the most important reframing for me. I explained that the proposed endeavor was not just “my research topic” or “my job description,” but the broader application of my expertise to important public, scientific, technical, or policy problems. My current job was used as evidence that this endeavor is already being applied in a practical setting.
One thing that helped me was identifying a three-step logic in my field, without making it too narrow. For example, instead of saying “my endeavor is to work on this exact model/project/dataset,” I framed it more generally as something like:
- identifying and understanding complex system problems;
- developing or improving analytical tools, methods, or evidence-based approaches to address those problems; and
- applying those methods in real-world decision-making, planning, management, or public-interest contexts.
Then I used my background to show that I had experience in all three steps. That made the endeavor feel coherent. It was not just “I have a PhD” or “I have publications” or “I have a government job.” It became a story: I developed expertise, applied it through research, and now I am positioned to continue applying it in work that has broader importance.
I also tried to avoid making the endeavor sound too dependent on one employer. I mentioned my current job because it was strong evidence, but I did not frame the endeavor as something that only exists because of that job. I framed the job as one example of where my expertise is currently being used, while the broader endeavor could continue through future work, research, technical projects, public-sector work, consulting, publications, collaborations, etc.
Another thing I did was organize my evidence by developmental stage rather than by random exhibit type. So instead of thinking:
“Here are my diplomas, here are my papers, here are my citations, here are my letters,”
I thought:
“Here is how my expertise started, here is how it became specialized, here is how it became recognized, and here is how it is now being applied.”
That helped me write a much stronger narrative. The evidence was not just a pile of documents. Each piece had a role in the story.
For the recommendation letters, I tried to make sure each person supported a different part of the narrative. Some letters were better for proving technical ability. Some were better for showing the importance of the field. Some were better for showing that my work was useful beyond academia. Some were better for explaining why I was well positioned to continue the endeavor.
My advice to other applicants is: do not start by asking “what is my job title?” or “what is my research topic?” Start by asking:
“What problem have I been consistently moving toward solving?”
“What skills have I developed over time that make me useful in that area?”
“What evidence shows that this is not just a personal career goal, but something with broader importance?”
“What evidence shows I am already positioned to keep doing it?”
Once I saw that pattern, my petition became much easier to explain. I stopped treating my career as a collection of disconnected accomplishments and started presenting it as a progression toward a clear proposed endeavor.
Of course, this is just my experience and not legal advice. But for anyone struggling to define the NIW endeavor, what helped me was making it broad enough to show long-term national importance, but specific enough that USCIS could understand what I actually do and why I am qualified to keep doing it.
Post about my background/RFE: Self-petition PhD PP Nebraska - RFE on the 3 prongs 🥴 : r/EB2_NIW