I hold a leadership position and at the same time am a senior engineer on my team. For the EB-1 “critical role” criterion, is it acceptable to refer to different roles in different parts of the petition — sometimes as a senior engineer, sometimes as a team lead? Or do I need to choose one variant and present all EB-1 criteria in that context? Or is it better to choose a broader title — simply software engineer?
Detailed analysis of the topic: Critical role: criterion analysis
It’s better to frame the critical role around a single clear job title — if different positions show up in the petition, the officer will begin to doubt the actual scope of responsibility. Choose the one that’s best supported by documentation.
There’s a nuance here — the officer reads the petition as a narrative, and if the title jumps between senior engineer and team lead without explanation, it raises questions about the actual scope of the role. From the cases discussed at AILA, the cleanest option is to pick a single primary title and, within it, describe both components: technical leadership and managerial responsibility. That way it reads as the breadth of one role, not as ambiguity between two.
A lead engineer at a 60k+ company is already a critical role—document your impact on the product and everything.
For critical role, choose one title, but describe both components within it.
My first petition had two different job-title wordings in different sections — and one of the items in the RFE was exactly that: the officer literally wrote “clarify which role is critical for the organization”. So pick one official title — the one in the offer letter or employment contract — and, under that title, spell out both the technical and the managerial aspects. That way it reads as a broad role, not as something vague or split.