Analyzing the criterion of a leading/critical role in an organization for O-1 and EB-1A: what USCIS requires, how to prove the role and the organization’s reputation, common RFE mistakes and answers to frequently asked questions.
Official USCIS requirements
Below is the full text from the USCIS Policy Manual (Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2) on the leading/critical role criterion. This is exactly the text an officer follows when evaluating your petition.
USCIS Policy Manual - full text of the criterion (eng. + rus.)
Criterion 8: Evidence of the person’s performance of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
USCIS determines if the person performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. USCIS then determines if the organization or establishment (as a whole or a division or department thereof) has a distinguished reputation.
A leading role means that the person is (or was) a leader within the organization or establishment. A critical role should be understood to refer to evidence that the person has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization’s or establishment’s activities.
Relevant factors in evaluating evidence of a leading role may include, but are not limited to, whether the person has been in a senior role or position within the organization or establishment as a whole, or a division or department thereof. If the person was a leader, officer, or analogous position for a department or division of an organization, the officer will evaluate the role the department or division plays within the organization as a whole, or within a division or department thereof.
A critical role should be understood to mean a role of significant importance to the activities or outcomes of the organization or establishment. Relevant factors in evaluating evidence of a critical role may include, but are not limited to, evidence showing the person’s impact or effect on the organization’s or establishment’s activities, or evidence that the person was otherwise responsible for a significant amount of the organization’s or establishment’s success or standing.
Examples of lead or critical roles may include, but are not limited to:
- Senior faculty or senior research position for a distinguished academic department or program;
- Senior research position for a distinguished non-academic institution or company;
- Principal or named investigator for a department, institution, or business that received a merit-based government award, such as an academic research or Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant;
- Member of a key committee within a distinguished organization;
- Founder or co-founder of, or contributor of intellectual property to, a startup business that has a distinguished reputation; and
- Leading or critical role for a distinguished organization or a distinguished division of an institution or company, as explained in detail by the director or a principal investigator of the relevant organization or division.
Considerations:
A supporting role may be considered critical if the person’s performance in the role is (or was) important. It is not the title of the person’s role, but rather the person’s performance in the role that determines whether the role is (or was) critical.
This is one criterion where letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the person’s leading or critical role can be particularly helpful to officers in making this determination, so long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the person’s role for the organization, establishment, division, or department was leading or critical.
Second, USCIS determines whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which the person holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation.
The relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor but is considered together with other information to determine whether a distinguished reputation exists. Other relevant factors for evaluating the reputation of an organization or establishment can include the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage.
For academic departments, programs, and institutions, officers may also consider relevant and credible national rankings and receipt of government research grants as positive factors.
For a startup business, officers may consider evidence that the business has received significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or other such funders commensurate with funding rounds generally achieved for that startup’s stage and industry, as a positive factor regarding its distinguished reputation.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “distinguished” as “marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence” or “befitting an eminent person.”
Source: USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
Translation into Russian
Критерий 8: Доказательства того, что лицо выполняло ведущую или критическую роль в организациях или учреждениях, имеющих выдающуюся репутацию.
USCIS определяет, выполняло ли данное лицо ведущую или критическую роль в организации или учреждении. Затем USCIS определяет, обладает ли организация или учреждение (в целом или их подразделение/отдел) выдающейся репутацией.
Ведущая роль означает, что лицо является (или являлось) лидером в организации или учреждении. Критическая роль подразумевает доказательства того, что лицо внесло вклад, имеющий существенное значение для результатов деятельности организации или учреждения.
Факторы оценки ведущей роли могут включать, но не ограничиваться, занимал ли данное лицо старшую должность или позицию в организации или учреждении в целом, либо в их подразделении или отделе. Если лицо являлось руководителем, должностным лицом или занимало аналогичную позицию в отделе или подразделении организации, офицер оценивает роль, которую этот отдел или подразделение играет в организации в целом.
Критическая роль означает роль существенной важности для деятельности или результатов организации или учреждения. Факторы оценки критической роли могут включать, но не ограничиваться, доказательства влияния лица на деятельность организации или учреждения, либо доказательства того, что лицо было ответственно за значительную часть успеха или положения организации.
Примеры ведущих или критических ролей:
- Старшая преподавательская или старшая исследовательская должность в выдающемся академическом отделе или программе;
- Старшая исследовательская позиция в выдающемся неакадемическом учреждении или компании;
- Главный или именованный исследователь (PI) для отдела, учреждения или бизнеса, получившего конкурсный грант (например, SBIR);
- Член ключевого комитета в выдающейся организации;
- Основатель или соучредитель стартапа с выдающейся репутацией, или лицо, внесшее интеллектуальную собственность;
- Ведущая или критическая роль в выдающейся организации, подробно описанная директором или главным исследователем.
Важно: Поддерживающая роль может считаться критической, если выполнение роли было важным. Определяющим является не название должности, а то, как лицо выполняло эту роль.
Письма от людей, лично знакомых со значимостью ведущей или критической роли заявителя, могут быть особенно полезны, при условии что они содержат подробную информацию о том, как роль заявителя в организации была ведущей или критической.
Выдающаяся репутация организации:
Относительный размер или долговечность организации сами по себе не являются определяющим фактором. Другие факторы: масштаб клиентской базы, освещение в СМИ, национальные рейтинги (для академических учреждений), получение государственных грантов.
Для стартапов: значительное финансирование от государственных структур, венчурных фондов, ангельских инвесторов может служить положительным фактором.
Словарь Merriam-Webster определяет “distinguished” как “отмеченный выдающимися качествами, отличием или превосходством”.
Note: USCIS evaluates two aspects separately: (1) whether the role was leading or critical, and (2) whether the organization has a distinguished reputation. You must prove both elements.
Wording in the regulations
In the law this is criterion number 8, 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(viii):
Wording of the leading/critical role criterion
The literal text from the Code of Federal Regulations that a USCIS officer uses when evaluating a petition.
“Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”
Translation: Evidence that the alien performed a leading or important role in organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
This is evidence item number 8 (viii) in USCIS’s list. According to the USCIS Policy Manual, the critical nature of a role is determined not by the job title but by how the person performed that role.
How to prove it
To meet this criterion you must prove two elements: (1) your role was leading or critical, and (2) the organization has a distinguished reputation. Below we analyze each element.
Defining the role
To satisfy this criterion you need to provide evidence that the applicant did not merely work, but played a leading or critical role in an organization that has significant reputation in its field. Note that emphasis is not on the job title but on the impact the applicant had on the organization’s work.
Proof of employment
You can confirm employment with a copy of the employment agreement or contract, and a letter from the employer confirming the actual position held.
Confirmation of the role
To prove that the applicant’s role was leading or critical, use job descriptions, duties listed in the employment contract, and letters from the employer explaining the role. For example, if the applicant held one of the company’s key positions or their duties directly affected the company’s key outcomes, this should be clearly reflected in the submitted documents.
Organization’s reputation
Evidence of the organization’s distinguished reputation can include publicly available information such as market share, media coverage, company history and longevity, number of employees, financial metrics, partnership agreements with other prominent companies or individuals, and other relevant data. Letters of support from respected colleagues or industry leaders who can confirm the organization’s status and influence are also useful.
Documents to substantiate the role
Job descriptions
Confirming the applicant’s duties and authorities.
Project performance reports
Showing the applicant’s contribution to the company’s success.
Recommendation letters from senior management
Confirming the importance of the applicant’s role in the organization.
Statistics and analytics reports
Demonstrating the applicant’s results and their impact on company success.
Press or industry publications
Where the applicant’s contribution to the industry or company projects is mentioned.
Remember that every document should be well-prepared and clearly corroborate the claimed facts. This will emphasize the significance of your contribution to the organization’s successes and strengthen your position as a candidate with extraordinary ability.
Checklist: evidence of a critical or leading role
This checklist is based on analysis of over 50 RFEs received in 2022–2023. Check whether the petition includes the following evidence:
- Documents confirming that you played a critical role in an organization or establishment
- Awards received in connection with your role
- Appointment orders showing your position
- Confirmation that your role was critical or important for a project’s or organization’s success. This can include letters from colleagues or supervisors confirming your contribution, or documents demonstrating your achievements within a project or organization
If you held a supporting role, it can still be considered “critical” if your activity in that role is (or was) of important significance. Criticality is determined not by the role’s title but by how you executed it.
Evidence of critical impact on the organization
Proof that your work or contribution had a significant impact on your industry or field. This may include publications, citations of your work, patents, or other forms of recognition. For example, if you created prototypes or carried out R&D work, you should provide evidence of how they affected the field to an extent that is of substantial importance.
It is important to show that your work was not merely routine task performance but was critically important to the organization. An officer may determine that ordinary job duties are insufficient to meet this criterion. Therefore, emphasize how your contribution exceeded normal duties and how it was critical to the organization’s success.
Your position in the organization’s hierarchy
You must present documents that define or show your place in the hierarchy of the organization where you claim the critical role.
“Overall, the submitted letters describe the beneficiary’s successful work, completed projects and organizational impact. However, this is insufficient to meet the wording of this criterion.
Although [the recommender] asserts that the most important system projects ‘can only be entrusted to elite IT professionals,’ this is insufficient to satisfy the plain wording of this criterion.
For a role to be considered critically important or significant, it is necessary to demonstrate that the beneficiary made and will make contributions of substantial importance to the outcomes of the organization or establishment’s activities. The criticality of a role is determined not by the beneficiary’s job title but by their work in that role. Although all talented employees contribute to an organization’s success, only a few roles are considered critical or central to the organization and should be evident from their position in the overall organizational hierarchy or by their influence on the organization’s activities.
You did not submit documents defining the beneficiary’s place in the hierarchy of the relevant organizations.”
Evidence of improvement in financial or other significant metrics
Make sure the petition includes evidence that your work led to improvements in the company’s financial or other significant performance metrics. This may include reports, charts, tables, or other documents that show improved performance attributable to your work.
Letters from employers or supervisors
Ensure the petition contains letters from current or former employers or supervisors who personally know the significance of your leading or critical role.
Requirements for letters:
- Letters should be detailed and include specific examples of your work and how it had an impact
- Letters should confirm your critical role in projects or organizations
- Letters should list specific tasks or achievements compared to other employees doing similar work in the field
- Letters should include the author’s name, address and job title
- Letters should contain a date. Missing dates can raise doubts about authenticity
- Letters should be written on company letterhead
- The author should use a professional company email address. Use of a personal address (Gmail) may raise doubts about professionalism
- The letter should contain a detailed explanation of why the role is considered “leading” or “critical”
IMPORTANT point about letters for this criterion. The requirement to show how your role differed from peers/colleagues, where you are in the hierarchy, and why your function was critical — this is not a one-off preference but a persistent pattern in many RFEs/NOIDs. Including comparative metrics and benchmarks (by people and by departments) is a must-have.
RFE quotes: comparison with colleagues
Below are exact quotes from real RFEs about the need to compare with other peers.
“The letters should contain detailed and probative information … Details should include the specific tasks or accomplishments of the beneficiary as compared to others who are employed in similar positions within the field of endeavor.”
“…does not provide specific examples… does not explain how the petitioner’s role distinguished him from other architectural managers within their organizations, nor does the evidence show where the petitioner is/was in the overall hierarchy.”
“…the evidence submitted provides no comparative analysis showing how the petitioner, as one of many staff engineers, is leading or critical when compared to his peers, let alone to more senior members…”
“…the letter does not illustrate how his role made him more valuable than other colleagues… fails to demonstrate how his role differentiated him from other leaders in the company.”
“…the letters do not illustrate how your role made you more valuable than other colleagues… USCIS requires specific and detailed information regarding the beneficiary’s performance.”
Ideas for letters: how to show comparison with colleagues
Possible “live” headings (phrasing prompts):
External recognition and trust:
- Represents the team at meetings with demanding partners without accompaniment
- Is invited first to critical briefings
- Management asks them to review final versions of other specialists’ materials before submission
- Colleagues use their approaches as examples when training new employees
- Internal checklists and standards are based on their work
Uniqueness of expertise (why it’s worse without them):
- Handles rare operations for which there is no interchangeability in the department
- Manages the full cycle — from task definition to release — without handoffs between departments
- Deals with non-standard cases when typical instructions don’t work
- Switches between brands/products/formats without loss of quality
- Knows critical nuances where others most often fail
Attempts to redistribute functions (and what happened):
- Tried to split functions among several colleagues — deadlines slipped, tasks were returned for rework, and responsibility was reassigned back
- Training and regulations were passed on, but without their involvement typical errors occurred that required correction
- Even after transfer, some materials still went to them for final approval
- When replaced, the number of approvals with external parties increased
- Key “subtle” issues were not closed without them
Hierarchy and role (how it differs and where it “sits”):
- Formally the same title as colleagues, but in practice the group’s lead: escalations and final approvals come to them
- Occupies the level between line specialists and the head of direction; has final say on methodology
- Coordinates adjacent teams where colleagues’ responsibilities are limited to their segment
- In disputes their position becomes the working standard
- Senior-grade staff request their assessment before final decisions
Comparative metrics (concrete phrasings):
- Regularly closes comparable volumes faster than others while maintaining quality
- Brings materials to final form with fewer revisions than the team
- Takes atypical and risky cases that colleagues avoid
- Manages several directions in parallel without quality drops
- Quickly removes bottlenecks at “narrow spots” when others stall
- Materials after their preparation usually go out without additional proofreading
- In difficult discussions they propose a working solution first; colleagues join them
- Maintains pace during peak periods when others’ deadlines start to slip
- Adapts to new inputs and switches between tasks faster than others
- Picks up problematic areas and brings them to result where colleagues were delayed
- More often than others finalizes contentious issues without escalations
- Works carefully: reviewers have fewer questions on their versions than on the team average
- Can close a task “end-to-end” while colleagues require support from adjacent teams
- On calls with clients quickly removes clarifications that take others into long email threads
- Finds solutions that satisfy both production and client — colleagues do this less often
- Maintains stable quality even on routine background volumes where others tire
- Takes initiative more often rather than waiting for detailed instructions
- Adapts to brief changes and meets original deadlines more easily than others
- Does not pass “tails” to adjacent teams — brings tasks to finish personally
- Responsible for complex areas for which colleagues usually involve a manager
- Converts draft to working version fit for submission faster than others
- Spots risks earlier than the team and prevents them quietly
- Makes focused edits in disputed places without increasing correspondence
- Keeps quality under tight delivery windows where others see increasing revisions
- Balances cross-department interests better than the team average
- Resolves cross-block issues independently; colleagues need help
- Often helps in night or urgent releases when others lack resources
- Proposes solutions later adopted by colleagues as best practice
- Learns new tools faster and helps the team adapt
- Takes responsibility for outcomes — colleagues more often need managerial support
What fits and what doesn’t
Evidence of the organization’s distinguished reputation
Make sure the petition includes proof that the organization or establishment where you played a leading or critical role has a distinguished reputation.
Officers note in RFEs that by “distinguished” they mean Merriam-Webster’s definition: “distinguished” = “marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence,” or “befitting an eminent person.”
Check that you included in the petition:
- Confirmation of the organization’s reputation should be based not only on internal documents, but on public recognition
- That recognition should include external sources: articles in prestigious journals, reports from independent organizations, acknowledgments from leading industry experts
- Industry achievements: patents, contracts, sales, profit or other financial metrics
- Expert testimony: letters from experts in your field
- Participation in international or national organizations: documents confirming membership
- Collaboration with other well-known organizations: documents evidencing such collaboration
- Participation in significant projects or contracts: documents proving involvement
Make sure evidence of the organization’s reputation includes more than just press releases or the company’s organizational chart. Everything said about the company should clearly establish the organization’s reputation.
Ensure that information taken from Wikipedia or other publicly editable sources is corroborated by other reliable sources. Wikipedia alone may not be considered reliable. Officers have explicitly noted this in RFEs.
Evidence that projects influenced the organization’s reputation
If you claim your projects or achievements affected the organization’s reputation, provide specific evidence of that influence, not just a list of projects or awards.
What can serve as evidence of a leading/critical role
- Confirmation of a managerial position and title
- Evidence of duties and responsibilities
- Press and trade publications about your role or the project in the organization
- Official organizational charts
- Awards received from the organization
- Internal newsletters that feature you or your achievements
- Evidence of high salary
- Email correspondence discussing projects and achievements
- Presentations and reports
- Recommendation letters from senior executives
- Evidence of critical projects completed
- Client letters (about your role in securing contracts, services you provided, your participation)
- Proof of authority to sign important documents, such as contracts
- Signed letter from a high-ranking person (the higher, the stronger — letters from CEOs, VPs are typically stronger)
Content of a recommendation letter
Ideally the letter should include:
- Full name of the signer
- Explanation of the signer’s role in the organization
- Explanation of why the candidate holds a leading or critical role
- Company letterhead (not mandatory but much more persuasive)
- Statement of significance: important projects, dates and places, your role, internal projects, overall benefit to the organization
Evidence of the organization’s distinguished reputation
- Press excerpts about the organization
- Awards received by the organization
- Proof of the organization’s presence internationally
- Stock listings
- Proof of number of employees
- Forbes rankings
- Data on Crunchbase
- Organization’s biography page online
- Evidence showing difficulty of obtaining a position at the organization
Typical mistakes and RFEs
Example from an RFE: insufficient evidence
“In support of this criterion you submitted evidence that you recently joined two engineering societies. You also submitted evidence of contracts with companies you are or were associated with, business-related documents and awards, and evidence of participation in an exhibition. You also submitted numerous letters of appreciation. You also submitted appointment orders and awards not related to your field. You also submitted letters that mainly describe your past work and achievements as a project manager. Other letters were submitted, but they are not from current or former employees and therefore lack probative value for this criterion.
This criterion is not satisfied because the submitted evidence does not indicate that the role you performed is or was leading or critical.”
Example from an RFE: problems with letter format
“The letter from [the recommender] provides more detail about the Applicant’s role than other letters; however, the letter lacks a date, is not on company letterhead, and contains a personal Gmail address rather than a company address.
Although [the recommender] describes himself as a former general financial manager, we question the letter’s authenticity due to its personal rather than professional appearance. Even if we were to accept this letter as genuine and probative, it still does not sufficiently explain how the Applicant’s role in his specific division could be considered “leading” or “critical.””
Additional tips
To establish that an organization is distinguished, sometimes a single well-known name is sufficient. Nevertheless, it’s advisable to provide evidence that the company is distinguished.
- Remember USCIS officers are regular people who may not understand the technical language of your work. Make sure you and your letter writers explain projects and roles as if to someone unfamiliar with your field
- A role can be critical if there is strong evidence it produced a positive impact on the world. Letters from government leaders and other prominent figures praising the work can help strengthen arguments
- Mere promotions and taking on broader responsibilities may not satisfy the criterion. There have been cases where USCIS considered promotions and increased responsibilities alone insufficient to show broad recognition in the field
- To argue that a role is leading or critical you don’t necessarily have to manage a team or be a senior member. If you were tasked with work that provided critical benefit to the organization, you can successfully argue this criterion
FAQ
What is a leading or leadership role and how to meet it?
As the word implies, you must play a leadership role of some group, project, or team. An organization or establishment has a hierarchy of employees assigned various functions according to organizational needs. To convince a USCIS officer of your leadership role, you must demonstrate leadership qualities and the tactical ability to make decisions in complex situations.
For example, you might be a project manager handling complex, large-scale projects in your organization that lower-level managers ordinarily don’t handle. You lead a team, allocate tasks, review work, and ensure the project completes within the allotted timeframe. Your position is likely a leading one that adds value to the organization or establishment. Other examples: you head important departments in large organizations where senior executives work, etc.
In short, a leading role means a high-ranking position in the organization, e.g., CEO. If the organization is defined as an engineering division of a corporation, the head of engineering would play a leading role in that organization. USCIS will review the job title and corresponding duties to confirm the position was truly “leading.”
Demonstrating your leading role in an organization or establishment requires proving both leadership and managerial capability in performing job duties, whether as a contractor or an employee.
In other words, USCIS generally expects evidence that the person served at a director or executive level in large organizations. Working as a senior manager does not automatically qualify as a leader simply because there are more senior “leaders” or “directors” above them who are expected to perform higher-level leadership functions.
On the other hand, an independent contractor who advises executives at the director or leader level may qualify as leading and possibly critical. Specifically, and in the broader context of documenting a rise to the top of the field, one must show that their “leading role” leads/directs the company as a whole or at least heads or directs a company, department, division, or subcommittee within the organization/establishment such that the role/position can influence the organization as a whole because the relevant unit is internally important to the organization at large.
For example, it is commonly accepted that vice-president or director-level positions, whether regional or international, can affect the organization overall by guiding/impacting institutional directives related to engineering. Extending this logic across all units of an organization, the failure of any department, subcommittee, or division could certainly have a detrimental impact on the organization as a whole if it is not properly led/managed.
What is a critical role and how to prove it?
To prove a role is “critical,” the applicant must have made a “significant contribution to the outcome” of the organization or establishment. Whether a role was “critical” is determined not by the job title but by how the candidate actually performed in that role. Your contribution must have been pivotal to the organization (or division), for example, “influencing the organization’s overall reputation or status,” not limited to a single project within the organization.
You do not necessarily need a title or position in the organization; rather, the assessment focuses on whether your contribution affected the organization or establishment as a whole, economically, structurally, or reputationally.
For example, consider that as an independent contractor you developed software that expanded the organization’s global reach. If the organization patents it and converts its value into millions, you played a decisive role in its success. The degree of contribution’s significance is judged relative to your position and is subjective, based on individual interpretations.
Proving a critical role is generally harder than proving a leading role. Whereas leading roles are often evident from a job title and hierarchy, proving that one’s contribution was decisive for an organization is more demanding and strict. Without a title or position that clearly documents a person’s importance to the organization overall, the individual must provide proof that their contributions substantially affected the organization as a whole via cultural, educational, economic, or reputational gains. Although the ambiguity of these requirements allows many to claim such importance, the key element is the degree of impact resulting from the individual’s contribution(s). If someone contributes in a manner expected as part of routine duties (e.g., implementing internal processes), USCIS cannot regard this as critical unless there is irrefutable evidence—such as major financial consequences (e.g., saving the business millions or a significant figure relative to the organization’s overall expenses). Similarly, an R&D engineer who develops a patented technology may or may not be deemed “critical” depending on the relative financial/cultural impact of the contribution.
Proof that the applicant performed a leading or critical role is typically supported by employer letters confirming the applicant’s role in the organization. These letters must contain detailed and probative information specifically indicating how the person’s role was leading or critical. Provide concrete examples of how the individual’s personal involvement led to measurable organizational successes, e.g., directly securing funding for future projects (in the case of a research institute).
What questions does a USCIS officer ask when evaluating your role?
When evaluating whether your role is leading or critical, USCIS officers may ask themselves (or you) the following:
- Is this role leading?
- Is this role critical?
- Did you perform more than one leading or critical role?
- Is this role leading or critical to the entire organization or only to a part of it?
- Whom did you manage?
- What is your place in the organization’s hierarchy?
- Did you lead a team?
- What outstanding achievements did you accomplish as part of a team?
- Which projects did you lead or complete?
- Are you responsible for other employees’ work?
- What did your subordinates accomplish?
- What benefit did you bring to the organization?
- Were your duties pivotal to the company’s overall success?
- What work do you do?
- Are your duties above those of rank-and-file workers?
- Do your duties include work allocation and management?
- What is your influence on the organization?
- What tasks or projects were assigned to you?
- Is there anything you did for the organization or your team that no one else did that provided additional benefit?
What questions does an officer ask about the organization’s reputation?
The USCIS employee reviewing your case will question not only your role but also the prestige of the organization where you served. When assessing whether the organization is distinguished, they may ask:
- Is the organization distinguished?
- Is the organization well-known?
- How long has the organization existed?
- What is the organization’s reputation?
- How many employees work at the organization?
- What is the organization’s valuation?
- Is the organization known worldwide?
- How much does the organization control the industry?
How to prepare evidence?
Be careful how you explain your impact and significance. USCIS experts won’t parse technical job duties on their own, so it is critical to supply evidence and explanations clearly showing what you did and how it affected your field and organization. You are the author of the story you present to USCIS. You may lead a crucial function, manage a team of outstanding people, develop major internal tools, negotiate contracts, and more. Whatever your role, begin preparing evidence that it is leading or critical.
If you claim a leading role, it is usually visible from the job title, the role’s placement in the company hierarchy, duties, and subordinates. If you claim a critical role, focus more on evidence of the influence your role had on the organization.
When compiling your petition profile (whether you do it yourself or with an attorney), think creatively about what evidence you can use to demonstrate your impact and the distinguished nature of those you worked for.