“Your Support Letters Are Not Independent”
This objection says a petition's support and expert letters carry little weight because their authors are too close to the petitioner or because the letters are conclusory. USCIS has no regulatory definition of “independent”; it weighs each letter for relevance, reliability, and probative value under a totality-of-the-evidence standard.
Ryan Locke, Attorney, Locke Immigration Law
Educational reference — general information about USCIS practice, not legal advice
What this objection actually means
This objection travels under several labels — the letters are “not independent,” “self-serving,” “conclusory,” or “hyperbolic.” Underneath them is a single concern: whether a letter is reliable evidence of the petitioner's standing, or whether it reads as advocacy from someone with a stake in the outcome. USCIS does not disqualify a letter simply because a professional relationship exists; it assigns weight based on who wrote the letter, what they know, and how specifically they say it.
Two things drive the weight a letter receives. The first is the author's distance from the petitioner: letters from current or former employers are commonly treated as not independent, and letters from close colleagues or collaborators as less independent, while letters from outside experts who know the work by reputation and record carry more weight. The second is substance: a letter that tracks the regulatory language or praises the petitioner in general terms does little, while a letter that explains a specific contribution and its concrete effect on the field does much more — and that is true even for an author who is otherwise independent.
What the law and USCIS guidance require
There is no regulation defining “independent” for EB-1A letters. USCIS evaluates expert letters under a weight-of-the-evidence approach: submission of letters is not presumptive proof of eligibility, and the agency may accord varying weight based on the letter's relevance, reliability, and overall probative value. That standard comes from Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988), and Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011). The AAO applied Caron in Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799, 805 (AAO 2012): where the director had not questioned the experts' credentials, their knowledge, or the veracity of their testimony, the AAO found the uncontroverted testimony reliable, relevant, and probative as to the facts in issue.
At the same time, letters are competent evidence that must be considered — an adjudicator may not simply disregard them as self-serving. Courts have long recognized expert opinion letters as probative in this context (Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 446 (N.D. Ill. 1995) ('Better evidence of an alien's extraordinary ability would be difficult to find')), and USCIS Policy Manual guidance directs officers to take into account the probative analysis experts provide, while cautioning that letters which are conclusory or hyperbolic should be discounted (6 USCIS-PM F.2). A federal court enforced that directive in Chursov v. Miller, No. 18-cv-2886 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019), holding that USCIS acted arbitrarily when it 'failed to examine the opinion letters for evidence of major significance, directly contradicting its Policy Manual.' Both the Policy Manual and Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook (19th ed., ch. 10) treat a current or former employment relationship as bearing on independence and the author's affiliation as a factor in the weight a letter carries, and favor outside experts who know the beneficiary by reputation and body of work.
Two related doctrines shape how letters are read. Letters that merely repeat the words of the statute or regulation do not carry the petitioner's burden (Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)). And where multiple letters share notably similar language or structure, the adjudicator may treat that similarity as a basis for questioning the underlying claims (Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015)). The converse also holds: an agency may not label detailed letters 'general and broad' where that characterization is 'inconsistent with the actual language' of the letters, as the court held in Golani v. Allen, No. 22-10202 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2023), where the letters specifically described the petitioner's work as 'novel' and 'unprecedented.'
Governing authorities
- Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988)
- Expert letters are not presumptive proof; USCIS may give them varying weight and may reject a letter not in accord with the record or otherwise questionable.
- Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011)
- Confirms the varying weight given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and overall probative value; an author's affiliation goes to weight, not admissibility.
- Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799, 805 (AAO 2012)
- Applies Caron; where the director did not question the experts' credentials, knowledge, or veracity, the uncontroverted testimony was reliable, relevant, and probative.
- Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
- Recognizes that expert opinion letters are competent evidence an adjudicator must consider — better evidence would be difficult to find.
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Illustrates the conclusory-letter problem: general characterizations of the petitioner do not carry the burden, in contrast to letters that specify a contribution and its effect.
- Chursov v. Miller, No. 18-cv-2886 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019)
- USCIS acted arbitrarily by failing to examine the opinion letters for evidence of major significance, contrary to its own Policy Manual, and by weighing the letters in isolation.
- Golani v. Allen, No. 22-10202 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2023)
- An agency may not dismiss detailed testimonial letters as 'general and broad' when that characterization is inconsistent with the letters' actual language.
- Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015)
- Notably similar language or structure across letters may be treated as a basis for questioning a petitioner's claims.
- Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
- Repeating the language of the statute or regulation does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.
- 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)
- The original-contributions criterion, where expert testimony most often does its work.
- USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 2 (6 USCIS-PM F.2)
- Directs officers to weigh the probative analysis of experts, asks that letters set forth the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise, treats a current or former employer as not independent, and cautions against conclusory or hyperbolic letters.
How the AAO has analyzed this evidence
Drawn from de-identified, publicly available AAO decisions. These illustrate how the Administrative Appeals Office has analyzed the evidence in front of it — not the odds of any particular case.
The AAO has scrutinized recommendation letters for signs they were drafted from a template rather than independently authored, and has assigned diminished weight where multiple letters shared identical language. It has paired that with the rule that letters tracking the words of the regulation, or praising the petitioner in hyperbolic terms, do not add probative value — while letters that specifically articulate how a contribution mattered to the field do.
“The identical language calls into question whether the letters were independently prepared by the authors, and therefore diminishes their probative value.”
Applying the Board's rule from Matter of R-K-K-, the AAO has explained that when letters from different authors share notably similar wording or structure, the adjudicator may treat that resemblance itself as a reason to question the claims the letters support — a distinct concern from whether any single author is independent.
“When a petitioner has provided correspondence from different persons that contribute to the eligibility claim, but the language and structure contained within the letters is notably similar, the trier of fact may treat those similarities as a basis for questioning a petitioner's claims.”
The AAO has drawn the line between letters that carry weight and letters that do not in terms of specificity: a letter that explains how a contribution mattered to the field and shaped later work is probative, while one that stays general or leans on hyperbole is not — a distinction that turns on content, not on how independent the author is.
“Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion.”
In a decision that reviewed the same petition before and after the letters were rewritten, the AAO treated specificity as the deciding variable. The initial letters were found too general to show major significance; on reopening, letters that described concrete, real-world effects of the petitioner's work — from high-level officials who had firsthand knowledge — were credited as attesting to that significance.
“The Petitioner's letters of support did not provide sufficiently detailed information to demonstrate the nature of specific contributions he made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance.”
The AAO has also enforced the standard against the agency itself. Where an officer acknowledged that recommendation letters were submitted but did not engage their contents, the AAO treated that as a failure to explain why the evidence fell short and remanded — a reminder that letters are evidence the adjudicator must analyze, not merely note.
“The Director did not discuss the contents of those letters and thus did not adequately explain how the evidence fell short of supporting the Petitioner's claim.”
The stock language USCIS uses for this objection
When an RFE or denial reaches this objection, it tends to use one of these phrases. Each is decoded from the firm's RFE library — what it means, the standard it invokes, and the authority behind it.
“The support letters are from the beneficiary's current or former employer and are not independent.”
USCIS is saying that letters from current or former employers or supervisors carry less weight because the author is not independent of the beneficiary. It gives more weight to outside experts who know the beneficiary by reputation and published record rather than through a personal or employment tie. The comment is directed at the source's independence, though a detailed, corroborated letter can still be weighed in the totality of the evidence.
- The standard
- USCIS weighs a letter writer's independence as part of the totality of the evidence, treating employers and close associates as less independent than outside experts.
- Authority
- Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988)
“The letters are conclusory and amount to mere assertions unsupported by objective evidence.”
USCIS is saying the letters state broad praise or conclusions but do not explain specifically what the beneficiary did, why it was novel, or how it influenced the field. USCIS discounts letters that are conclusory or use exaggerated language, and gives more weight to letters offering detailed analysis backed by objective corroboration such as citations or adoption. The concern is the absence of specific, verifiable analysis — not merely the identity of the author.
- The standard
- USCIS accords letters greater weight when they provide detailed, probative analysis corroborated by objective evidence, and need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
- Authority
- Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988)
“The submission of expert support letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.”
USCIS is saying that submitting letters from experts does not by itself prove the case, because USCIS remains the final decision-maker on eligibility. It treats such letters as advisory input to be weighed for relevance, reliability, and probative value, not as automatic proof. USCIS is describing the limited role letters play within the whole record, not necessarily rejecting them.
- The standard
- Expert statements may be used as advisory opinions but are not binding; USCIS is responsible for the final determination and weighs them for relevance, reliability, and probative value.
- Authority
- Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988)
“The expert letter addresses the importance of the field generally rather than the impact of the beneficiary's specific work.”
USCIS is saying the letter talks about why the field or the employer matters, but does not explain what this particular person did or why it was significant. It gives such letters little weight because they lack specific analysis of the beneficiary's own contributions. USCIS is looking for detail tied to the individual, not a general endorsement of the field.
- The standard
- A letter is persuasive when it analyzes the beneficiary's specific contributions and sets out the writer's basis of knowledge; letters that address the field in general may be given reduced weight.
- Authority
- USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 2
“The expert opinion letter does not establish the author's basis of knowledge for the opinions offered.”
USCIS is saying the letter offers opinions without establishing how the author knows what they claim to know — the author's basis of knowledge for the opinion. Persuasive expert letters establish the author's qualifications and basis of knowledge, provide specific analysis rather than bare conclusions, and explain why the conclusions are reached. USCIS may reject an expert opinion or give it less weight only if it is not in accord with other information in the record or is in some way questionable as to credibility, expertise, or knowledge — and it must articulate a specific reason rather than dismiss the testimony summarily.
- The standard
- An expert opinion letter should establish the author's expertise and basis of knowledge and provide specific analysis; USCIS may discount it only where it conflicts with the record or is otherwise questionable, and must give a specific reason for doing so.
- Authority
- Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012)
What responses to this objection generally document
General patterns seen in effective responses to this objection. This is educational context, not a recommendation about any specific case.
- •Responses to this objection generally include letters from outside experts with no current or former employment tie to the petitioner, who know the work by reputation and published record rather than by personal acquaintance.
- •Where a professional connection exists, they generally disclose its nature, scope, and timeframe rather than leaving it unstated, and orient the letter toward the author's field-wide vantage point.
- •They generally ask each author to address a different aspect of the petitioner's work, with specific facts, dates, and outcomes only that author would know, so the letters are not interchangeable and do not track a shared template.
- •They generally replace conclusory or regulatory-language praise with concrete analysis — what was novel, how the field took it up, and what changed as a result.
- •They generally attach objective corroboration for the letters' claims (citation data, adoption or implementation records, patents, standards references) so the testimony does not stand on assertion alone.
- •They generally include a short biography or faculty profile for each author to establish credentials, and pair connected authors with several truly independent experts across different institutions.
Related criteria and tools
Every case turns on its own record
This page describes how USCIS and the AAO have treated a recurring objection in general. How it applies to a specific petition depends on the field, the evidence, and the exact wording of the notice. An attorney review reads your notice against your filed record before any response is drafted.
Request an attorney review →Facing an RFE like this?
Send us the notice and your filed petition. We'll tell you how we read the objection and what a response would need to establish.
Immigration counsel to Fortune 500 employers at a national firm · Adjudicated 12,000+ visas at the U.S. Consulate, Mexico · Working in U.S. immigration since 2008
Featured in Newsweek, Condé Nast Traveler, Daily Mail