EB-1A judging criterion
The regulation speaks of being asked to judge the work of others. The Policy Manual expects actual participation. Peer review of other people’s papers can meet Step 1 if you have the invitation and the completed reviews.
What the box is for
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. USCIS is looking for independent selection: someone outside your company asked you because of your standing, and you did the work.
Strong versus thin
- Stronger: journal or conference review, a selective national panel, dissertation or grant review for others, a program committee that actually assigned you papers
- Thin: an internal hackathon, a student contest at your own school, judging your own reports, or an invite you never answered
- Keep both pieces: the invitation (who asked, for what venue) and proof you finished (acknowledgment, review system screenshot, editor email)
Exhibits to put in the vault
A calendar invite is not enough. Pair the request with completion and with a short note on why the venue is selective, if that is not obvious.
- Invitation on letterhead or from the editor’s official address
- Confirmation that reviews were submitted
- How reviewers are chosen, if the journal or conference publishes it
- A count of completed reviews, with years, not a lifetime claim with no dates
How this site treats it
If the resume only says “reviewer,” the free check treats that as a claim. Upload the invite and the completion note so the score can move. Judging that is only in-house usually stays weak. This is still only Step 1. Final merits looks at whether judging, together with the rest of the file, shows sustained acclaim.
Related: original contributions, EB-1A for software engineers, RFE notes.
This is not a law firm and does not file petitions. USCIS decides each case on its own record.