Qualifying For the EB-1A: Judging the Work of Others
- Amber Davis
- May 15
- 3 min read
By Amber Davis, Principal Attorney at Waypoint Immigration USA, and Kate Luther
In the wake of the Mukherji decision, we have seen a subtle shift at the immigration agency from what had become a standard (albeit vague and often frustrating) Final Merits review, to a significantly more critical analysis of the individual criteria itself. Submissions are now being scrutinized against a whole new set of assumptions and standards, and petitioners are finding it harder to successfully demonstrate their qualifications.
We believe understanding this shift and how each criterion is actually evaluated can help you build a more persuasive petition and improve your chances of success. Over the next several weeks, we will use this blog space to facilitate that deeper assessment and take a closer look at each criterion, one by one.
Let’s start with criterion #4: Judging the Work of Others.
What It Is
Your participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or related field for which your designation is sought.
What It Means
In general, there are three main requirements to meet this criterion:
An individual must participate, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in their same or an allied field.
"Participation" is the key term; it is not sufficient to simply be invited to judge. The individual must perform the actual work of judging, such as reviewing materials, making notes, and receiving formal recognition for the completion of that task.
Judging opportunities should ideally involve other professionals or advanced students, such as Master’s or PhD candidates, rather than high school or undergraduate students.
Breaking It Down
This criterion can often be easier to satisfy than some of the others, and it offers significant control over your presentation. The USCIS emphasizes academic achievements for instance, but there are also a number of creative (and industry-based) ways to fulfill this requirement. Examples include:
Academic: Peer reviewing for scholarly journals, reviewing abstracts or papers for conferences, reviewing grants or government research programs, and serving on PhD dissertation committees.
Industry and Creative: Judging hackathons, participating in industry award competitions (such as the Stevies or Globies), and serving on advisory boards or committees for companies, professional associations, or governments.
Specialized Consulting: Expert-level consulting arrangements can qualify if the individual is invited specifically for their expertise. NOTE: those on U.S. work-authorized status must ensure these activities do not violate their employment terms.
Building Your Strategy
To get the most from this requirement, it is important to be tactical about how each qualifying instance or example is presented.
Quantity: To maximize your impact, choose your best judging activities and aim for between five to twelve examples in total. There is no specific number required, but too few can diminish your accomplishment, and too many can clutter the petition.
Sustained Effort: Consistent and “sustaining” effort is key. Try to maintain a steady pace of “judging” rather than stopping entirely once a target number is met, as this demonstrates a sustained reputation in the field.
Quality: The more prestigious the role, the better. Give priority to higher-level opportunities, such as serving on an editorial board or reviewing for a high-impact journal.
Workplace Reviews: Evaluating the work of colleagues or subordinates in a full-time job typically does not count toward this criterion. This type of experience can be more effectively used to support a "leading or critical role" argument.
Supporting Documentation
The best way to support this claim is to provide evidence that covers the duration of the judging process, not just the initial request or the completion of the work. Do not skip this step; it is extremely important. Potential documentation could include:
Invitations: Proof that the individual was invited to participate based on their expertise, such as emails or letters.
Proof of Participation: Documentation of the actual work performed, including comments, score sheets, rubrics, or snapshots of online submission portals.
Confirmation: Final documentation such as certificates of appreciation, thank-you notes, or acknowledgments that the feedback was received.
Wrapping It Up
Ultimately, USCIS officers are often inconsistent in their evaluation of EB-1A’s criterion, so it can be hard to anticipate what to expect. And again, this latest shift suggests a stricter checklist will be the expected “norm” for a while. Taking the time to expand your presentation and compile sufficient supporting documentation before you submit can go a long way in overcoming arbitrary objections.
To learn more about the EB-1A petition process, we invite you to schedule a consultation or explore our list of EB-1A services with this quick quide.
Comments