EB-1A RFE · 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)
USCIS says the judging criterion has not been established?
The judging criterion requires evidence that the petitioner actually participated, individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. An invitation alone does not necessarily establish that the judging activity was completed.
Show actual participation, not merely selection or invitation.
Judging can take different forms depending on the field. Academic peer review is a common example, but the regulation is not limited to journal review. The underlying question is whether the petitioner actually evaluated the work of others in the same or an allied field.
An RFE may arise when the filing contains invitations to review manuscripts, serve on panels, evaluate proposals, or participate in competitions but does not document that the petitioner actually completed the judging activity.
Why USCIS may question judging evidence.
Only invitation emails were submitted.
An invitation can show selection, but the response should also establish that the petitioner actually completed the requested review or evaluation.
The relationship to the field is unclear.
The record should explain why the work being judged belongs to the petitioner’s field or an allied field.
The activity is described as ordinary job supervision.
Routine supervision or performance management should not simply be relabeled as judging without explaining how the petitioner evaluated the professional work of others within the regulatory framework.
Confidential peer review cannot be fully disclosed.
Where confidentiality limits production of underlying materials, other records may corroborate completed reviews without disclosing protected content.
Document the judging activity from multiple angles when necessary.
The evidence should allow USCIS to determine what was judged, who requested the review, whether the petitioner actually participated, and how the activity relates to the petitioner’s field.
- Journal or conference invitations together with records confirming completed peer reviews;
- Reviewer dashboards, acknowledgments, certificates, editorial records, or review histories;
- Evidence of service on grant, award, competition, dissertation, technical, or other qualifying review panels where appropriate;
- Correspondence from editors, organizers, institutions, or panel administrators confirming completed judging activity;
- Programs, panel rosters, appointment records, or official materials identifying the petitioner as a judge or reviewer;
- Evidence explaining the subject matter of the work reviewed and its relationship to the petitioner’s field;
- Documentation showing repeated judging activity where relevant; and
- Redacted records where necessary to preserve legitimate confidentiality while still proving actual participation.
Answer the narrow criterion first, then preserve context for final merits.
For the initial criterion, the response should focus on proving actual judging of the work of others. It should not add requirements that are not in the regulation merely because the petitioner was selected by a prestigious journal or organization.
At final merits, however, the circumstances of the judging may provide additional context. Repeated selection by respected journals, institutions, agencies, or professional bodies may help demonstrate how the field regards the petitioner when considered with the rest of the record.
Organize judging evidence so USCIS can verify completed participation.
A table identifying the organization, date, type of review, subject area, and supporting exhibit can make a large peer review record easier to adjudicate. The written response should distinguish invitations from completed activities.
Where the petitioner has dozens of reviews, representative underlying records combined with an authoritative reviewer history or confirmation may be more useful than an unorganized collection of repetitive emails.