Judging/Evaluation Evidence Pitfalls for EB-1A

The "judging" criterion under the EB-1A classification requires demonstrating you have been asked by others in your field to evaluate or judge the work of others, and that this activity reflects national or international acclaim. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood criteria—many petitioners fail here despite having impressive credentials.

What the AAO Actually Requires

The regulation defines "judging" as activities where you:

1. Evaluate or judge someone else's work

2. Make decisions that affect outcomes

3. Are selected for this role based on your expertise, not just participation in a group activity

4. This selection reflects national or international acclaim (placing you among the top percentage of professionals)

The Three Most Common Pitfalls

1. Routine Tasks Mischaracterized as Judging

Pitfall: Describing grading assignments, coaching duties, or committee membership as "judging" without demonstrating authority over outcomes.

Example: In decision Aug052009_04B2203, the petitioner described her role in fitness competitions but failed to provide evidence that she had actual authority to evaluate athletes' performances and make decisions affecting their outcomes. The AAO stated: "Evaluating one’s own athletes is a coaching duty, not participation as a judge of others’ work."

Example: In decision AUG292016_02B2203, the petitioner claimed she "oversees, grades, and judges the work of students" but provided no detailed description showing authority to evaluate and make decisions affecting outcomes.

2. Unverified Peer Review Counts

Pitfall: Submitting screenshots or unverified counts of peer reviews without evidence that these activities placed you among the top percentage in your field.

Example: In decision AUG222017_01B2203, the petitioner claimed 31 manuscript reviews but presented only screenshots. The AAO found this count "unverified" and noted there was no contextual proof that peer review work placed her among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

3. Membership Without Selection Criteria

Pitfall: Claiming membership in professional associations without documented evidence of selection criteria or national/international recognition.

Example: In decision Apr142011_02B2203, the petitioner claimed membership in a medical association but provided no documentation that membership required outstanding achievement. The AAO stated: "The Board finds insufficient comparative evidence to satisfy additional EB‑1A criteria."

What Evidence Actually Works

Peer Review for International Journals Can Satisfy Judging (but not alone)

Example: Decision Apr142011_02B2203 found that peer review activity for the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics satisfied the judging criterion. The AAO noted: "The Board finds that the petitioner’s service as a reviewer for an international journal satisfies the requirement of having been asked by others in her field to evaluate or judge the work of others."

However, this alone was insufficient—the petition also failed other criteria including awards and original contributions.

Leading Critical Roles with Demonstrated Authority

Example: Decision AUG292016_02B2203 found that a site administrator role could satisfy judging if properly documented. The AAO required:

• Detailed description of duties showing authority to evaluate and make decisions affecting others' work

• Evidence of reputation or influence within the organization

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.