When USCIS Says Your EB‑1A Expert Letters Lack Contact Info (Even When They Do)
This is the story of Individual who recently got RFE. I never thought “contact information” would be the issue that triggers an EB‑1A RFE. Yet here I am.
I recently received a Request for Evidence on my EB‑1A petition where USCIS stated that my expert letters “did not contain contact information in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)” and therefore could not be considered probative. They also added the usual line that “solicited letters are not presumptive evidence of eligibility.”
The strange part is that every letter absolutely did contain contact information.
What I Actually Submitted
For each expert / recommendation letter, I made sure to include clear, verifiable details about the author. Specifically, every letter contained
The author’s full name and position title
The company or institutional affiliation
An official email address
A phone number
A link to the author’s LinkedIn profile, where their role and affiliation are publicly visible
These were not anonymous endorsements. They were very standard expert letters from real people with traceable professional identities.
So when USCIS stated the letters lacked contact information under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g), it immediately raised questions. Was this about formatting? Was it about the absence of a physical mailing address? Or was it just boilerplate being applied too aggressively?
What 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g) Actually Says
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g) describes how evidence relating to qualifying experience or training should appear. It says that such evidence should be in the form of letters from current or former employers or trainers and that the letters should include
The name of the writer
The address of the writer
The title of the writer
A specific description of the duties performed or training received
In other words, the regulation explicitly mentions an address, together with name and title. It does not define what type of address (physical mailing address, business address, etc.). But it does not say that email alone is enough. It uses the word “address” in the traditional sense, which adjudicators will usually interpret as a physical mailing address for the writer or their organization.
So if your letters have name, title, company, email, phone, and LinkedIn, but no explicit physical address block, an officer could take the position that they technically do not comply with the “address” requirement in the regulation, even if the person is easily contactable through modern channels.
Why Physical Letters Still Matter
My own answer to this problem is simple. I treat these as physical letters, not just digital endorsements.
In my view, a proper expert letter should look like an old‑fashioned physical letter that just happens to be transmitted digitally. That means
Company or institutional letterhead at the top that clearly shows the organization’s full physical address
The author’s name, title, and affiliation clearly printed beneath the signature
A signature block that includes the author’s direct contact details (email, phone number, office address)
When USCIS sees a document formatted like this, it becomes much harder for them to argue that the letter lacks contact information. The “address” requirement is visibly satisfied. The writer’s identity is clear. The letter looks like what the regulations were written for: a formal, verifiable statement from a real professional that could be mailed, called, or otherwise traced.
Solicited Letters and “Not Presumptive Evidence”
The RFE also contained the familiar sentence that “solicited letters are not presumptive evidence of eligibility.” This is standard language that shows up in a lot of EB‑1A and O‑1 RFEs. It does not mean that support letters are worthless. It means that testimonial letters, by themselves, do not automatically prove that you meet the regulatory criteria.
USCIS has published policy guidance confirming that officers must evaluate all credible, relevant evidence under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and should not create extra evidentiary requirements beyond the regulations. Courts have also criticized decisions where officers dismiss expert letters too quickly.
In practice, this means
Your letters should not just recite the language of the regulations. They should explain specifically what you did and why it matters.
Letters need to be backed by independent evidence: citations, media, patents, awards, metrics, contracts, or other documents that show your impact.
The petition should not rely on letters alone. The letters should interpret and contextualize evidence that is already in the record.
So when USCIS says “solicited letters are not presumptive evidence,” the way to respond is not to abandon letters. It is to make sure that (1) they formally comply with the regulations (including the address requirement) and (2) they are tightly cross‑referenced to objective evidence in the rest of your file.
How I Plan to Fix the Letter Issue
With my RFE deadline approaching, here is how I am approaching the contact information problem, in coordination with my attorney
Treat it as a technical compliance issue
I assume the officer wants to see an explicit physical address in each letter, because that is what the regulation literally mentions. Even if email, phone, and LinkedIn are more practical, I accept that the safest path is to make the letters look like classic employer or expert letters with a full address block.Resubmit letters on formal letterhead
I am asking my recommenders to provide revised letters on official company or institutional letterhead that clearly showsOrganization name
Full physical mailing address
Website if possible
The text of the letters will remain substantially the same, but we will clean up formatting and make the letters look like they could be printed and mailed.
Include a clear signature block with contact info
Under each signature, we are includingFull name
Title and department
Organization name
Physical mailing address (same as letterhead or office address)
Email address
Phone number
That way there is no room to argue that the letter writer cannot be contacted using normal professional channels.
Address the regulation directly in the attorney cover letter
My attorney will explicitly cite 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g), explain how the revised letters meet the requirement for name, address, and title, and point out that USCIS may not impose additional requirements beyond the regulation. This helps shift the conversation from “your letters were defective” to “your letters now clearly satisfy the standard the regulation sets.”Strengthen the probative value of the letters
In parallel we are tightening the substantive content of the letters so that they do not merely offer praise, but actuallyDescribe specific contributions (projects, publications, inventions, standards, deals)
Explain measurable impact (citations, adoption, revenue, users, policy influence, technical breakthroughs) where possible
Connect those contributions to the actual EB‑1A regulatory criteria we are invoking
In the legal brief, each important statement in the letters will be cross‑referenced to independent exhibits: papers, citation records, patents, contracts, press coverage, or other documents. That helps answer the “solicited letters” objection by showing that the letters are not standing alone but are interpreting a body of objective evidence.
Why I Still Believe in Physical‑Style Letters
Even in 2026, with email, LinkedIn, and AI everywhere, I think the safest mindset is to treat immigration support letters as physical letters that happen to be scanned. My simple answer to the RFE is that a traditional physical letter with clear identity and address, even if sent digitally, should fully meet the regulatory intent.
You can always add email, phone, and LinkedIn on top. But skipping a physical address because “everyone is reachable online” creates an easy excuse for an officer to question your evidence. When your entire case rests on satisfying technical rules, you do not want to hand them that excuse.
In my situation, my attorney is leading the RFE response and the deadline is fixed. What I want from the process is not only an approval, but a clear, documented example of what actually worked: what letter format the officer accepted, how the brief addressed 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g), and which combinations of letters plus hard evidence finally met the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Until then, I am sharing this experience because I know many other EB‑1A applicants are in the same position: you did everything you thought was right, and then a small technical detail in the RFE forces you to rethink how “contact information” should look in 2026.
If you have gone through this exact scenario and succeeded after revising your letters, I would be very interested in how your final letters were structured and what your attorney emphasized in the response.