Draft a Response to a USCIS RFE

Turn a USCIS Request for Evidence into a structured response by having Claude identify every issue, map your client's evidence, flag the gaps, and draft a cover argument you then verify.

The Workflow

1. 1

   Paste the RFE and extract every issue

   Start a fresh conversation and give Claude the full text of the RFE along with the petition basics. Ask it to separate the substantive requests from the boilerplate and list each issue discretely, including the nested sub-requests that are easy to miss. Leave out client identifiers you don't need—you can refer to the beneficiary generically.

   PromptCopy

   You are assisting a U.S. immigration attorney. Below is the full text of a USCIS Request for Evidence (RFE) for a [VISA/PETITION TYPE, e.g., I-140 EB-2 NIW] petition.
   
   Read it carefully and produce a numbered list of every distinct issue or request the officer is raising. For each one:
   - State the issue in one plain sentence.
   - Quote the specific language from the RFE that raises it.
   - Note exactly what category of evidence USCIS is asking for to resolve it.
   - Flag any sub-requests nested inside a larger paragraph.
   
   Separate genuine requests from boilerplate statutory recitation. Do not add legal analysis yet. If anything is ambiguous, say so rather than guessing. We will work through this in the same conversation.
   
   RFE TEXT:
   [PASTE FULL RFE TEXT HERE]

   What you get: A clean, numbered breakdown of each request with the triggering language quoted and the evidence category named for each—plus explicit flags on anything ambiguous or buried in a longer paragraph.

2. 2

   Map the client's evidence to each request

   Now tell Claude what is actually in the file. Give it a plain-language inventory of documents and facts and have it align each item to the issues from Step 1. This is where you see your coverage at a glance.

   PromptCopy

   Here is the evidence currently in the client's file. Map it against the numbered issues you identified above.
   
   For each issue, create a short entry showing:
   - The issue number and one-line description.
   - Which of the available documents below directly support it.
   - How strong that support is: DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE, PARTIAL, or TANGENTIAL.
   
   Do not overstate what a document proves. If a document only partially addresses a request, say so plainly. If an issue has no supporting document yet, mark it UNSUPPORTED.
   
   AVAILABLE EVIDENCE:
   [LIST DOCUMENTS AND FACTS, e.g., employment verification letter dated [DATE]; three reference letters from [FIELD] experts; published article in [JOURNAL]; pay records 2021-2024; degree evaluation]

   What you get: An issue-by-issue map linking each USCIS request to the specific documents you hold, each with an honest strength rating, so you can see at a glance where you are solid and where you are thin.

3. 3

   Flag the gaps and what you still need

   Ask Claude to invert the map: which requests are not yet fully answered, and what additional evidence would close each gap. This becomes your client follow-up list and your pre-filing checklist.

   PromptCopy

   Based on the evidence map, identify the gaps. Keep your evidence suggestions appropriate for a [VISA/PETITION TYPE] petition.
   
   List every issue that is NOT yet fully supported by the available evidence. For each gap:
   - State which request is under-supported and why.
   - Suggest concrete types of evidence that would strengthen the response (e.g., additional expert letters, contracts, citation records, organizational charts, media coverage).
   - Note where a sworn declaration or affidavit from the beneficiary or employer could help fill a factual gap.
   
   Rank the gaps from most to least critical to address before filing. Frame these as drafting and evidence-gathering suggestions, not as legal conclusions about whether the petition will be approved.

   What you get: A prioritized gap list—the specific holes in your response and concrete evidence ideas to fill each one—that doubles as a client and employer follow-up checklist before you file.

4. 4

   Draft the response framework and cover argument

   With the issues, evidence map, and gaps in hand, have Claude draft the skeleton of the response: a cover letter that walks through each request and a paragraph framework arguing how your evidence satisfies it. This is a first draft of structure and language, not a finished filing.

   PromptCopy

   Now draft a first-draft framework for the RFE response cover letter, using the issue list and evidence map above.
   
   Structure it as:
   1. A brief opening that identifies the petition, includes a receipt-number placeholder, and states that this responds to the RFE dated [DATE].
   2. A section for EACH numbered issue, in the RFE's order, with:
      - A clear heading naming the issue.
      - A short argument paragraph explaining how the attached evidence satisfies the request.
      - A bracketed list of the exhibits cited for that issue.
   3. A short closing that requests approval.
   
   Use a professional, measured tone. Leave [BRACKETS] anywhere a specific fact, date, exhibit number, or figure is needed so I can fill it in. Do NOT invent regulations, case citations, or USCIS policy references—insert [CITE: ___] placeholders instead and I will supply the authority. Tie every assertion to a document from the evidence map; do not add facts that are not in the record.

   What you get: A structured cover-letter draft with a section per issue, argument paragraphs tied to specific exhibits, and [CITE: ___] placeholders wherever legal authority belongs—ready for you to fill, verify, and rewrite in your voice.

5. 5

   Verify against current policy and finalize

   Do not file anything yet. This is the non-negotiable lawyer-in-the-loop step, and it is yours alone. Read the draft as the attorney of record and check it line by line against the source record and current law.

   What you get: A response you can stand behind. Confirm every legal and policy citation against a primary source, since AI can fabricate authority that looks real; check the draft against CURRENT USCIS policy, which changes often and may have shifted since the model's training; verify each exhibit reference matches the actual record; confirm no client fact was invented or overstated; resolve every UNSUPPORTED flag and bracketed placeholder; and rewrite the argument in your own voice where persuasion matters. The filing goes out over your signature—own it.

Example Output

Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.

ISSUE BREAKDOWN — RFE for I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver (illustrative, fictional)

1. Substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor
   RFE language: "The record does not establish that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance."
   Evidence requested: Documentation describing the endeavor and its broader impact.
   Available evidence: Personal statement (PARTIAL); one expert letter (DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE).
   Strength: PARTIAL — impact described but corroborated by only a single letter.

2. Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the endeavor
   RFE language: "Submit evidence of the beneficiary's qualifications, record of success, and plan to advance the endeavor."
   Evidence requested: Degrees, record of achievement, a concrete plan.
   Available evidence: Degree evaluation; CV; two reference letters.
   Strength: DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE on credentials; the plan is thin.

GAP LIST (most to least critical)
   - Issue 1: Add 2-3 independent expert letters and any adoption or citation evidence. [CRITICAL]
   - Issue 2: Add a detailed forward-looking endeavor plan and a beneficiary declaration. [HIGH]

DRAFT COVER LETTER (excerpt)
   Re: Response to Request for Evidence, Receipt No. [WAC-________]
   This letter responds to the RFE dated [DATE] regarding the Form I-140 filed on behalf of [BENEFICIARY].
   I. Substantial Merit and National Importance
   The enclosed evidence establishes that [BENEFICIARY]'s endeavor in [FIELD] carries national importance because [FACT]. See Exhibits [A-C]. [CITE: ___]
   [VERIFY every citation and confirm the current NIW standard before filing.]

Tips

• •Work in one conversation and go in order. Each step feeds the next—if you jump straight to the draft, Claude is writing without the issue list and evidence map it should be drafting from.
• •Be specific in your prompts. Instructions like "quote the RFE language for each issue" and "insert [CITE: ___] placeholders" produce far cleaner, more verifiable output than a vague "write my RFE response."
• •Never let Claude supply the law. Make it flag every authority as a placeholder, then confirm each regulation, memo, and policy reference against a primary source yourself—fabricated or rescinded citations are the single biggest risk.
• •Re-check current USCIS policy by hand. Adjudication standards and policy guidance shift often and can post-date the model's knowledge, so verify the live requirements before you rely on any standard the draft states.

Prompts used in this workflow

Related Reading

• Claude AI for Immigration Lawyers
• Immigration Practice
• How to Write Legal Prompts That Actually Work