EB-1A readiness report

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)

What we found

No award certificate on file

Why it is not satisfied

Not satisfied (proof 0/100). The file does not show the elements in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Show you received the prize, that it is national or international, and that it is for excellence. A team prize can count if it was given to you, not only to the employer. Add the selection rules, who competed, and proof the prize is known outside your employer. Internal or local awards rarely work.

What did not meet the test

• Proof you received the award: A website listing or a letter saying you were nominated is not receipt. A team award can count if the prize was issued to you, not only to the employer (USCIS Policy Manual, Oct 2024). Example exhibit: Certificate with your legal name, award title, year, and issuing body (e.g. “IEEE Medal for Environmental and Safety Technologies, 2024, awarded to the named recipient”).
• National or international scope: Campus, company, city, and regional awards are routinely rejected at Step 1. Example exhibit: Eligibility page: “Open to practitioners worldwide” or “U.S. National competition; applicants from all 50 states.”
• Judged for excellence, not attendance: Officers ask who judged it, the criteria, and how competitive it was. Example exhibit: Selection-criteria PDF: “Judged on originality, impact, and documented excellence by a panel of 9 independent experts.”

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)

What we found

No selective membership exhibit

Why it is not satisfied

Not satisfied (proof 0/100). The file does not show the elements in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Membership has to require outstanding work, judged by recognized experts. Current and past memberships can count. Add the bylaws or admission rules. Dues-only or degree-only groups do not meet this box.

What did not meet the test

• Admission standards that require outstanding achievement: Dues-only, degree-only, or ‘anyone can join’ memberships fail. Example exhibit: Bylaws § membership: “Fellows shall have made outstanding contributions to the field, as judged by the Fellows Committee.” Highlight that sentence.
• Judged by national or international experts: A committee of coworkers or a local chapter is not enough. Example exhibit: Fellows-committee roster: names, institutions, and that they are independent of your employer.
• Proof you held that selective class of membership: A LinkedIn badge is not primary evidence. Past memberships can count if the class required outstanding achievement when you held it. Example exhibit: Certificate: class of membership in bold (Fellow, Elected Member, Member of the National Academy).

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)

What we found

No major-media clip on file

Why it is not satisfied

Not satisfied (proof 0/100). The file does not show the elements in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The piece has to be about you, in professional or major media. Employer PR, blogs, and paid posts are weak. Include the title, date, author, and why that outlet matters.

What did not meet the test

• The article is substantially about you: A quote in a company product story is not ‘about you’. Example exhibit: Full PDF: headline uses your name or your named method (e.g. Nature News, “How a named imaging model changed radiology screening”).
• Professional or major trade / major media outlet: Employer PR, Medium, LinkedIn, and paid wires are discounted. Example exhibit: Masthead or “about this publication”: circulation, unique visitors, or “the journal of record for [field].” Examples: NYT, WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, Nature, Science, IEEE Spectrum, Modern Healthcare, Variety.
• Title, date, author, and translation if needed: Undated clips and screenshots without the outlet fail. Example exhibit: First page showing publication name, date, author, and URL.

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)

What we found

IEEE-AIC-2025-review-invitation

Why it is not satisfied

Show that you completed the reviews, not only that you were invited.

What did not meet the test

• Invitation to serve as a judge or reviewer: Self-description on a CV is not an invitation. Example exhibit: Elsevier/IEEE/Springer peer-review invitation with full email headers (From, Date, Manuscript ID).
• Evidence you actually judged: An invite you declined does not meet the criterion. Example exhibit: Journal “thank you to reviewers” page or Publons/ORCID review record with the year and journal name.
• Same or allied field, independent of your employer: Internal code review or hiring screens are job duties. Example exhibit: The journal/conference/agency is in your field (computer vision, interventional cardiology, etc.).

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)

What we found

Two patents · US-patent-specification; Employer-retention-letter

Why it is not satisfied

Add who outside the employer used or licensed the work, with dates.

What did not meet the test

• What is original, in plain facts: ‘Innovative work’ with no named method or result is conclusory. Example exhibit: Paper: first/corresponding author, title, venue, DOI, one sentence on what was new vs prior art.
• Independent proof the field used it: Officers ask what others did with the work, not what you think it means. Example exhibit: Google Scholar/Scopus: paper X cited 400+ times; InCites percentile in the field.
• Beyond ordinary job duties: Doing a hard job well is not a contribution of major significance. Example exhibit: Show use outside your employer (customers, other labs, other hospitals, open-source users).

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)

What we found

IEEE-Xplore-secure-computation; Acceptance-IEEE-AIC-2025

This criterion is supported at Step 1 on the current file.

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)

What we found

Conference reviewer · Employer-retention-letter; Independent-expert-letter

Why it is not satisfied

Add the organization's distinguished reputation and why the role was critical.

What did not meet the test

• Leading or critical, not only a title: ‘Senior’ or ‘principal’ on a business card is not enough. Example exhibit: Org chart with your box as head of the unit, plus a duty statement you signed.
• The organization has a distinguished reputation: A small unknown firm needs independent proof of distinction. Example exhibit: Independent ranking or press: Fortune 500, nationally ranked hospital, R1 university, NIH-funded center, national lab.
• Both prongs in the same exhibit set: A critical role at an undistinguished org, or a junior role at a famous org, fails. Example exhibit: Expert letter that names (1) your specific critical duties and (2) why the org is distinguished, then points to Exhibit numbers.

8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)

What we found

No W-2 or survey benchmark

Why it is not satisfied

Not satisfied (proof 0/100). The file does not show the elements in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). High pay compared with others in the field. Use an independent survey, not only coworkers with the same title. Compare people in a similar place.

What did not meet the test

• Your actual pay: An offer letter for a job you did not take is weak. Example exhibit: W-2 (Box 1 and 5) or 1099-NEC for the year, name matching the petition, SSN redacted.
• Independent field benchmark: Comparing yourself to teammates is not the regulatory test. Example exhibit: Radford / Mercer / Culpepper page: occupation, level, metro, 90th percentile highlighted next to your W-2.
• Same field and location: A U.S. Tech salary vs a different country’s academic scale is not comparable. Example exhibit: Survey slice: same job family (e.g. Staff ML Engineer, SF Bay, 2025), not “all software worldwide.”

Peer review is listed. There is no invitation showing you were selected to judge the work of others, as opposed to a routine job duty.

What would close it. Editor or program-chair invitation, plus proof of completed reviews.

Original contributions of major significance cannot rest on letters that say the work was significant. Officers look for independent proof: citations, licenses, adoption, standards, or use by unaffiliated groups.

What would close it. A citing paper, license, adoption email from outside, or a standard that names the work, then the letter can explain it.

The record does not show the field changed, only that the employer shipped a feature.

What would close it. Unaffiliated users, citations, or a standard. Internal adoption is not the field.

A senior title is not a leading or critical role. The organization must have a distinguished reputation, and the file must show the role was leading or critical to it.

What would close it. Org prominence (independent), your duties, and results tied to you, not an offer letter title.

The record does not show the organization has a distinguished reputation in the field.

What would close it. Independent standing of the org (rankings, press, scale) plus why your role was critical there.

Meeting three criteria is only Step 1. Final merits still asks whether the whole record shows sustained national or international acclaim and a place among a small percentage at the top of the field.

What would close it. Independent use, acclaim over several years, and a clear field, not more job-duty letters.

Almost all recognition on this file comes from the same employer. Officers look for acclaim outside that circle.

What would close it. Unaffiliated citations, invitations, press, or users.

Sustained acclaim means over time, not a burst in one year.

What would close it. Dates that span years: papers, judging, adoption, or press with a timeline.

The record does not show people outside the employer using or citing the work.

What would close it. Independent citations, forks, licenses, or implementations.

Letters that only say “extraordinary” without dates, a named contribution, and an exhibit number get little weight.

What would close it. Each letter should cite a specific exhibit, a date, and a fact the writer can know.

A patent filing shows originality. It does not, by itself, show major significance in the field.

What would close it. Licensing, independent implementation, or citations to the patent, not only the grant.

Duties are listed. Outcomes that depended on this person are not.

What would close it. A dated result (product, funding, standard, retention of a contract) with your name on the decision.

Letters from coworkers and clients of the same company look coordinated. Independent writers carry more.

What would close it. At least some letters from people with no financial tie, who learned of the work from the field.

Show you received the prize, that it is national or international, and that it is for excellence. A team prize can count if it was given to you, not only to the employer. Add the selection rules, who competed, and proof the prize is known outside your employer. Internal or local awards rarely work.

Membership has to require outstanding work, judged by recognized experts. Current and past memberships can count. Add the bylaws or admission rules. Dues-only or degree-only groups do not meet this box.

The piece has to be about you, in professional or major media. Employer PR, blogs, and paid posts are weak. Include the title, date, author, and why that outlet matters.

Show that you completed the reviews, not only that you were invited.

Add who outside the employer used or licensed the work, with dates.

Add venue standing or independent citations, not only the PDF of the paper.

Add the organization's distinguished reputation and why the role was critical.

High pay compared with others in the field. Use an independent survey, not only coworkers with the same title. Compare people in a similar place.

Independent-expert-letter.pdf

Recommendation letter. Writer line: Jordan Hale. Reads as unaffiliated with the employer. 562 characters of text were readable. Does not name a patent, paper, license, judging role, or award. Dates on the page: 2025. I read the 2025 IEEE paper on secure computation. Usable as support, not as the primary exhibit.

• Jordan Hale does not point to a patent, paper, license, or other exhibit in the file.

Ask the writer of recommendation letter to name one specific contribution, a date, and the exhibit that proves it. Do not reuse the same template as another letter.