Organizing evidence for employment-based green card and O-1 visa petitions requires systematic tracking of which documents support which criteria. An evidence matrix maps your proof to regulatory requirements, ensuring comprehensive coverage and identifying gaps. This blog explains how to build and use an evidence matrix for immigration petitions.
An evidence matrix is a spreadsheet or table that lists regulatory criteria in rows and available evidence in columns, with cells indicating which evidence supports which criteria. For EB-1A, list the ten extraordinary ability criteria; for O-1, list the eight evidentiary criteria; for EB-2 NIW, list the three Dhanasar prongs. Populate the matrix by reviewing each piece of evidence and marking which criteria it supports. The completed matrix reveals which criteria have strong support, which need additional evidence, and which evidence serves multiple purposes. This systematic approach ensures you address all requirements and present evidence strategically.
Evidence matrices map available evidence to regulatory criteria systematically.
USCIS evaluates whether you meet required criteria with documented evidence.
List all ten EB-1A criteria or eight O-1 criteria as matrix rows.
Columns represent individual evidence pieces: awards, publications, letters, etc.
Cells indicate strength of connection: strong support, partial support, or not applicable.
Identify gaps where criteria lack sufficient evidence.
Use the matrix to organize petition narrative and exhibit structure.
Evidence matrices map available evidence to regulatory criteria systematically.
USCIS evaluates whether you meet required criteria with documented evidence.
List all ten EB-1A criteria or eight O-1 criteria as matrix rows.
Columns represent individual evidence pieces: awards, publications, letters, etc.
Cells indicate strength of connection: strong support, partial support, or not applicable.
Identify gaps where criteria lack sufficient evidence.
Use the matrix to organize petition narrative and exhibit structure.
An evidence matrix is an organizational tool that cross-references your evidence against regulatory requirements. It creates a visual map showing which evidence supports which criteria and where gaps exist.
The matrix format varies, but typically criteria form rows and evidence pieces form columns. Each cell indicates whether and how strongly that evidence supports that criterion. Completed matrices reveal patterns in your evidence profile.
Building the matrix forces systematic analysis of your case. Instead of hoping evidence works, you verify that specific documents actually address specific regulatory language.
Lists do not show relationships between evidence and criteria. You might list twenty exhibits without understanding whether they collectively satisfy requirements.
Matrices reveal coverage and gaps. A criterion row with empty cells needs attention. An evidence column supporting multiple criteria is particularly valuable.
The matrix enables strategic decisions. When you see which criteria are well-supported and which are weak, you can focus evidence-gathering efforts efficiently.
For EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions, create rows for each of the ten criteria specified in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3): awards, memberships, published material about you, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, leading role, high salary, and commercial success.
Create columns for each piece of evidence you have or can obtain: specific awards, specific publications, specific letters, etc. Be granular—list individual items rather than categories.
Fill cells with indicators of support strength. Use symbols, colors, or text to show strong support, moderate support, or no support for each criterion-evidence combination.
Your matrix might look like this conceptually:
Row headings: Awards, Membership, Published Material, Judging, Original Contributions, Scholarly Articles, Exhibitions, Leading Role, High Salary, Commercial Success.
Column headings: Innovation Award 2022, IEEE Senior Member, Forbes Article, Journal Review Invitations, Patent 1, Patent 2, Research Paper 1, Research Paper 2, Expert Letter A, Expert Letter B, Employment Contract, Salary Documentation.
Each cell indicates whether that column evidence supports that row criterion.
O-1 petitions require evidence of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated through at least three of eight criteria. Create rows for: awards, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, and high salary.
The structure parallels EB-1A but with fewer criteria and focus on the O-1 standard of extraordinary ability or achievement. O-1A (sciences, business, education, athletics) and O-1B (arts) have slightly different criteria emphasis.
Map your evidence against these criteria to identify which three or more you can satisfy with strong documentation.
O-1 requires three of eight criteria while EB-1A requires three of ten with a second-step final merits determination. The matrix helps ensure you meet the threshold while identifying additional criteria that strengthen your overall profile.
O-1 is temporary status while EB-1A is permanent residence. Evidence expectations may differ—O-1 focuses on current extraordinary ability while EB-1A includes sustained acclaim considerations.
Both matrices serve similar purposes: systematic evidence organization and gap identification.
Step one: List all criteria applicable to your petition category. Use exact regulatory language so you evaluate against actual requirements.
Step two: Inventory all available evidence. List every document, letter, award, publication, and other material you have or can obtain. Be comprehensive.
Step three: Analyze each evidence piece against each criterion. Ask whether this evidence directly supports this criterion under the regulatory definition.
Read the regulatory language carefully. "Awards for excellence" requires actual awards, not just recognition. "Published material about you" requires coverage focused on you, not mentions in passing.
Consider how USCIS adjudicators interpret criteria. The USCIS Policy Manual provides guidance on evidentiary evaluation. Expert letters should explain how evidence satisfies criteria.
Be honest about connection strength. Strong connections directly address the criterion. Weak connections require stretching the evidence or criterion interpretation.
Gaps indicate criteria without sufficient evidence. Decide whether to pursue additional evidence for gap criteria or focus on strengthening other criteria.
Some gaps can be filled with obtainable evidence. Request additional reference letters, gather documentation you overlooked, or pursue achievements that would satisfy weak criteria.
Other gaps reflect genuine weaknesses in your profile. If you have never judged others' work, you cannot create that experience quickly. Focus resources on criteria where you can build evidence.
For EB-1A and O-1, meeting exactly three criteria is risky. If USCIS finds one criterion insufficiently documented, you fall below the threshold.
Target five or more criteria to provide buffer against adverse findings. Strong evidence across multiple criteria also supports the final merits determination for EB-1A.
Quality matters more than quantity. Three excellently documented criteria beat five weakly documented ones.
Use the matrix to structure your petition narrative and exhibit organization. Address criteria in logical order, grouping evidence that supports each criterion together.
The matrix identifies which evidence serves multiple purposes. A publication might support both scholarly articles and original contributions criteria. Reference this dual relevance in your narrative.
Create an exhibit list that corresponds to your matrix. Number exhibits and reference them in your narrative where they support specific criteria.
Expert letters often support multiple criteria. A letter explaining your original contributions might also address their significance (supporting that criterion) and mention judging work you have done.
Map each letter's content against criteria. Strong letters address multiple criteria explicitly. Weak letters provide general praise without criterion-specific content.
Guide letter writers using your matrix. Share which criteria you need supported and ask writers to address specific aspects of your work relevant to those criteria.
An evidence matrix is an organizational tool that cross-references your evidence against regulatory requirements. It creates a visual map showing which evidence supports which criteria and where gaps exist.
The matrix format varies, but typically criteria form rows and evidence pieces form columns. Each cell indicates whether and how strongly that evidence supports that criterion. Completed matrices reveal patterns in your evidence profile.
Building the matrix forces systematic analysis of your case. Instead of hoping evidence works, you verify that specific documents actually address specific regulatory language.
Lists do not show relationships between evidence and criteria. You might list twenty exhibits without understanding whether they collectively satisfy requirements.
Matrices reveal coverage and gaps. A criterion row with empty cells needs attention. An evidence column supporting multiple criteria is particularly valuable.
The matrix enables strategic decisions. When you see which criteria are well-supported and which are weak, you can focus evidence-gathering efforts efficiently.
For EB-1A extraordinary ability petitions, create rows for each of the ten criteria specified in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3): awards, memberships, published material about you, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, leading role, high salary, and commercial success.
Create columns for each piece of evidence you have or can obtain: specific awards, specific publications, specific letters, etc. Be granular—list individual items rather than categories.
Fill cells with indicators of support strength. Use symbols, colors, or text to show strong support, moderate support, or no support for each criterion-evidence combination.
Your matrix might look like this conceptually:
Row headings: Awards, Membership, Published Material, Judging, Original Contributions, Scholarly Articles, Exhibitions, Leading Role, High Salary, Commercial Success.
Column headings: Innovation Award 2022, IEEE Senior Member, Forbes Article, Journal Review Invitations, Patent 1, Patent 2, Research Paper 1, Research Paper 2, Expert Letter A, Expert Letter B, Employment Contract, Salary Documentation.
Each cell indicates whether that column evidence supports that row criterion.
O-1 petitions require evidence of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated through at least three of eight criteria. Create rows for: awards, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, and high salary.
The structure parallels EB-1A but with fewer criteria and focus on the O-1 standard of extraordinary ability or achievement. O-1A (sciences, business, education, athletics) and O-1B (arts) have slightly different criteria emphasis.
Map your evidence against these criteria to identify which three or more you can satisfy with strong documentation.
O-1 requires three of eight criteria while EB-1A requires three of ten with a second-step final merits determination. The matrix helps ensure you meet the threshold while identifying additional criteria that strengthen your overall profile.
O-1 is temporary status while EB-1A is permanent residence. Evidence expectations may differ—O-1 focuses on current extraordinary ability while EB-1A includes sustained acclaim considerations.
Both matrices serve similar purposes: systematic evidence organization and gap identification.
Step one: List all criteria applicable to your petition category. Use exact regulatory language so you evaluate against actual requirements.
Step two: Inventory all available evidence. List every document, letter, award, publication, and other material you have or can obtain. Be comprehensive.
Step three: Analyze each evidence piece against each criterion. Ask whether this evidence directly supports this criterion under the regulatory definition.
Read the regulatory language carefully. "Awards for excellence" requires actual awards, not just recognition. "Published material about you" requires coverage focused on you, not mentions in passing.
Consider how USCIS adjudicators interpret criteria. The USCIS Policy Manual provides guidance on evidentiary evaluation. Expert letters should explain how evidence satisfies criteria.
Be honest about connection strength. Strong connections directly address the criterion. Weak connections require stretching the evidence or criterion interpretation.
Gaps indicate criteria without sufficient evidence. Decide whether to pursue additional evidence for gap criteria or focus on strengthening other criteria.
Some gaps can be filled with obtainable evidence. Request additional reference letters, gather documentation you overlooked, or pursue achievements that would satisfy weak criteria.
Other gaps reflect genuine weaknesses in your profile. If you have never judged others' work, you cannot create that experience quickly. Focus resources on criteria where you can build evidence.
For EB-1A and O-1, meeting exactly three criteria is risky. If USCIS finds one criterion insufficiently documented, you fall below the threshold.
Target five or more criteria to provide buffer against adverse findings. Strong evidence across multiple criteria also supports the final merits determination for EB-1A.
Quality matters more than quantity. Three excellently documented criteria beat five weakly documented ones.
Use the matrix to structure your petition narrative and exhibit organization. Address criteria in logical order, grouping evidence that supports each criterion together.
The matrix identifies which evidence serves multiple purposes. A publication might support both scholarly articles and original contributions criteria. Reference this dual relevance in your narrative.
Create an exhibit list that corresponds to your matrix. Number exhibits and reference them in your narrative where they support specific criteria.
Expert letters often support multiple criteria. A letter explaining your original contributions might also address their significance (supporting that criterion) and mention judging work you have done.
Map each letter's content against criteria. Strong letters address multiple criteria explicitly. Weak letters provide general praise without criterion-specific content.
Guide letter writers using your matrix. Share which criteria you need supported and ask writers to address specific aspects of your work relevant to those criteria.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I share my evidence matrix with my attorney?
Yes. The matrix facilitates collaboration with your attorney by showing your analysis of available evidence. Attorneys can identify additional evidence, suggest criterion emphasis, and refine your strategy.
Should I share my evidence matrix with my attorney?
Yes. The matrix facilitates collaboration with your attorney by showing your analysis of available evidence. Attorneys can identify additional evidence, suggest criterion emphasis, and refine your strategy.
How detailed should the matrix be?
Sufficient detail to guide petition preparation. List specific evidence pieces (not just categories) and indicate connection strength clearly. Overly complex matrices become unwieldy; find a balance.
How detailed should the matrix be?
Sufficient detail to guide petition preparation. List specific evidence pieces (not just categories) and indicate connection strength clearly. Overly complex matrices become unwieldy; find a balance.
Can I use the same evidence for multiple criteria?
Yes. Evidence frequently supports multiple criteria. A widely-cited publication supports scholarly articles, and its citations support original contributions significance. Reference evidence for each relevant criterion.
Can I use the same evidence for multiple criteria?
Yes. Evidence frequently supports multiple criteria. A widely-cited publication supports scholarly articles, and its citations support original contributions significance. Reference evidence for each relevant criterion.
Should I include evidence I decided not to use?
Include all considered evidence in your working matrix, then indicate which you chose to include. This documents your decision-making and helps if you need to revisit choices later.
Should I include evidence I decided not to use?
Include all considered evidence in your working matrix, then indicate which you chose to include. This documents your decision-making and helps if you need to revisit choices later.
Table of Contents
Quick Resources
