What Qualifies as Judging the Work of Others?
The O-1 regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) describe this criterion as participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. The judgment must be individual, and the beneficiary must be invited to participate based on their outstanding achievements.
Academic peer review is the prototypical example. Journals select reviewers based on expertise and reputation. Being asked to review manuscripts demonstrates that editors recognize your ability to evaluate cutting-edge work in your specialty.
Beyond academia, this criterion covers award judging, grant review panels, competition evaluation, conference paper selection, and similar roles where your expert opinion determines outcomes for others in your field.
What Does Not Qualify?
Routine evaluations that do not require special expertise typically do not qualify. Performance reviews of employees as part of normal management duties are not judging work of others in the O-1 sense. Student grading by teachers does not qualify unless it involves exceptional circumstances.
Open participation opportunities that anyone can join lack the selectivity required. If a website allows anyone to rate submissions, participation does not demonstrate recognized expertise. The organization must have specifically chosen you based on your qualifications.
Internal company reviews or evaluations within your own organization generally do not satisfy this criterion. The judging should involve external recognition of your expertise by organizations in your field.
How Do You Document Peer Review for Journals?
Journal peer review requires specific documentation to satisfy USCIS. Start with invitation letters or emails from journal editors asking you to review specific manuscripts. These invitations typically reference why you were selected.
Include evidence of the journal's significance. Impact factors, rankings in your field, publisher reputation, and editorial board composition all demonstrate that this is a legitimate, recognized publication. Obscure journals without standing provide weaker evidence.
According to USCIS policy, the evidence should show that your participation was as a judge of work, that it was in your field or allied field, and that the opportunity came because of your achievements. Documentation addressing all three points strengthens your case.
How Many Peer Reviews Are Enough?
There is no fixed number, but multiple reviews across different journals demonstrate pattern and sustained recognition. A single peer review could be opportunistic, while regular invitations from multiple publications show ongoing expertise recognition.
Quality matters more than quantity. Reviews for top-tier journals in your field carry more weight than numerous reviews for obscure publications. Focus on documenting your most significant reviewing relationships.
If you have reviewed extensively, select representative examples that demonstrate range and prestige rather than attempting to document every review.
What About Judging Awards and Competitions?
Industry awards judging provides strong evidence because awards programs typically select judges carefully based on reputation and expertise. Documenting this judging requires showing you were selected and explaining the award's significance.
Obtain letters from award organizers confirming your role and, ideally, explaining why you were chosen. Include information about the award's history, prestige, and the caliber of past judges or winners.
Competition judging—hackathons, design competitions, business plan contests, pitch events—also qualifies when the competition has standing in your field. Document your selection as a judge and the competition's significance.
How Do You Prove an Award Is Significant?
Significance evidence includes media coverage of the award, list of notable past winners, sponsoring organization's reputation, industry recognition of the award, and the selection process rigor.
If the award is well-known in your industry, experts familiar with your field can explain its significance in recommendation letters. Their perspective helps USCIS understand context that may not be obvious from documents alone.
Avoid claiming significance for obscure awards. USCIS adjudicators may research awards independently, and exaggerated claims undermine credibility.
How Do You Document Grant Review Panel Participation?
Government agencies and foundations frequently use expert panels to evaluate grant applications. Participation demonstrates that funding organizations recognize your expertise by trusting you to allocate resources.
Documentation should include invitation letters from the funding organization, correspondence about your participation, and information about the grant program's scope and significance. The National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and similar agencies are recognized funders whose review panels carry weight.
Private foundations and corporate grant programs also qualify if they have standing in your field. Document the organization's reputation and the grant program's significance.
What If Review Panel Work Is Confidential?
Many grant review panels require confidentiality about specific applications reviewed. This confidentiality does not prevent using the experience as evidence.
You can document your participation on the panel without revealing confidential application details. Invitation letters, participation confirmations, and general descriptions of your role satisfy the evidentiary requirement without breaching confidentiality.
Request a letter from the panel organizer confirming your service. Most organizations accommodate these requests because they understand immigration documentation needs.
What Makes Judging Evidence Compelling?
Compelling judging evidence shows three things: that recognized organizations selected you, that selection was based on your expertise and achievements, and that the judging role required specialized knowledge in your field.
The most persuasive evidence comes from prestigious organizations that are selective about their evaluators. A single invitation from a top journal or major funding agency can be more compelling than numerous invitations from obscure sources.
Pattern matters. Multiple judging roles across different contexts—journals, awards, grants, conferences—demonstrate broad recognition. Your field keeps asking for your expert opinion because you have established yourself as an authority.
How Do You Present Judging Evidence in the Petition?
Organize judging evidence clearly. Group similar types of judging together—all peer review in one section, award judging in another—with explanation of each role.
For each judging role, provide the invitation or selection documentation, evidence of the organization's significance, and brief explanation of what the role involved. Connect the judging to your expertise area.
Include a summary that shows the pattern: you have been selected repeatedly by recognized organizations to evaluate work in your field because of your established expertise and achievements.
