Can you tell me how much weight “successful case” articles on large companies’ corporate sites carry for EB-1? For example, when a write‑up about your work says something like “we implemented an A/B test, ad revenue increased by X percent.” I want to understand how USCIS treats these for EB-1 criteria — is it counted as a publication, as a contribution to the field, or do officers generally ignore this kind of evidence?
There is a fundamental difference here. Corporate case studies are not considered scholarly articles — USCIS requires professional publications subject to peer review or an editorial board, not a company blog, and this is not a matter of the employer’s size. Such material can be packaged under the “criteria for original contributions of major significance”, but in that case you need independent letters from people at other companies confirming that your approach actually influenced industry practice — not merely that you brought revenue to a particular firm.
6 Likes
And as for contributions, you can actually package that — the main thing is letters from independent people at other companies who can say they used your approach or that it influenced industry practice. In my petition, three such letters actually clinched that criterion; an officer won’t count corporate materials without them.
6 Likes
A corporate case in “Articles” won’t pass — the officer will reject it without peer review. Package it under “Contributions”: three letters from people at other companies saying they applied your approach, plus salary above the 75th percentile per the BLS — that’s a separate criterion that’s easy to meet.
6 Likes
An officer immediately dismissed a similar case for me — he won’t look at it at all without peer review.
6 Likes
One clarification about independent letters — the officer checks not only that the person is from another company, but also that they haven’t had any joint projects with you in the last several years. When I was gathering recommendations I deliberately chose people I had never worked with; otherwise it’s “independent” only on paper. And another important point — the letter must explain the specific mechanism of impact on the industry, not just “we applied a similar approach,” but “after this case we revised the methodology in our product.” Roughly speaking, the difference between “we were impressed” and “we implemented it” — the officer sees it.
6 Likes
Listen, the key in these letters is a specific action with a date. My recommenders wrote: „After your presentation at the conference, we revised the attribution system in our project in the first quarter“ — the officer credits exactly that level of detail; without it the letter is just a declaration. And salary above the 75th percentile according to the BLS is a separate criterion — that’s the easiest to satisfy.
6 Likes
In my first filing I had three letters, all from people I’d only ever crossed paths with at conferences. The officer wrote in the RFE that they weren’t sufficiently independent. In the second filing the lawyer got five people from completely different states, with no shared projects with any of them — that’s when it went through.
6 Likes