All EB-1A criteria
Awards - Membership - Media - Publications - Judging - Original contribution - High salary - Critical role - Final Merits
This is Part 3
In Part 1 — USCIS requirements and which awards qualify. In Part 2 — contentious awards, documents and mistakes. Here — a full analysis of the Stevie/Globee scandal, FAQ and examples of successful profession-specific cases.
Criterion 1 — Awards — Part 3
Contents
Stevie and Globee Awards: full analysis
A detailed analysis of the situation around the Stevie Awards and Globee Awards in the context of O-1 and EB-1A immigration petitions.
What these awards are
Stevie Awards and Globee Awards are commercial business awards marketed as “international and prestigious.” The organizers themselves describe them as “first-class international business awards” with juries made up of “hundreds of business leaders from around the world.”
Stevie Awards in numbers
- 30–40% of all entries receive awards (Gold, Silver or Bronze) — for comparison, Pulitzer winners are very few
- 12,000+ nominations annually from 70+ countries
- 9 separate programs: American Business Awards, International Business Awards, Asia-Pacific, German, MENA, Women in Business, etc.
- Fees: $275–320 for individual categories, $500–545 for team categories
Globee Awards in numbers
- “Achievers Membership” for $5,500 — includes 10 nominations and “1 honorary Gold Award opportunity”
- Grading is automatic: Gold (8.50–10.00), Silver (7.75–8.49), Bronze (7.00–7.74)
- Claimed number of judges — 25,000+ annually (which raises questions about real selectivity)
Why this is a problem for immigration:
- Pay-to-participate model: No fee — no participation. Self-nomination is available to everyone
- Too many winners: 30–40% of entries receive awards — where is the selectivity?
- Subjective criteria: Judges are volunteers without verified expertise
- Narrow categories: “Best use of technology in customer service by a North American financial company with 100–2500 employees”
“These ‘vanity awards’ don’t prove the value of your company and just waste your money and time.”
Translation: "These 'vanity awards' do not prove the value of your company and only waste your money and time."
What this means: The BBB (analogous to consumer protection in the US) has warned about such awards since 2008. Official position: true recognition should not require payment.
“The pay-to-participate model - $200-1000 per entry - raises meritocracy questions; this approach lets you simply buy multiple entries, diluting exclusivity, unlike say the Nobel Prize where there are no fees.”
Translation: "The pay-to-participate model — fees of $200–1000 per entry — raises questions about meritocracy. This approach allows you to simply buy multiple entries, diluting exclusivity, unlike prestigious awards where there are no fees."
Background: scandals before 2025
Korean journalists proved: fake nominations can win Stevie awards.
Journalists submitted fakes — and won Stevie (2020 experiment)
A team of Korean investigative journalists submitted fake nominations to the Asia-Pacific Stevie Awards 2020. Result:
- Despite being entirely fabricated, the nominations won several Stevie awards
- Journalists were accepted as judges without identity verification
- The reporters paid more than $1,000 in entry fees for the fake nominations
In response, Stevie Awards founder Michael Gallagher published a post “We’ve Been Had” (January 21, 2021), acknowledging the problem. The awards were annulled, but the fact that fakes passed demonstrates the system’s vulnerability.
11 Globee awards three months before bankruptcy with $140 million debt.
11 Globee awards 3 months before bankruptcy — how?
Company Pink Energy (formerly PowerHome Solar) in 2022 received 11 Globee awards:
- “Achievement in General Excellence”
- “Most Innovative Company of the Year”
- “Entrepreneur of the Year” for CEO John Waller
Three months later the company declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy:
- $140 million debt
- 25,000–50,000 creditors
- Thousands of customer complaints
- Investigations by several state attorneys general
Analyst Eugene Slaven on LinkedIn: “As an organization claiming business excellence, how did they award a company on the verge of bankruptcy eleven awards?”
Timeline of the scandal 2025
November 2023
Attorney Sharif Silmi publishes the first warning about Globee and Stevie: "are not acceptable evidence for EB-1A."
June 11, 2025
Reddy Neumann Brown P.C. releases a video: "USCIS Revoking EB-1A Approvals: Paid Publications and Fake Awards Exposed."
June 13–14, 2025
Indian media (Financial Express, Business Today) report: dozens of approved EB-1A petitions are being reexamined, USCIS issues NOIRs.
May 2025
Stevie Awards posts a retroactive disqualification of two Asia-Pacific Stevie Awards winners for rule violations on Facebook.
Summer 2025
A coordinated network of ~200 people was uncovered, mutually inflating citations, publications and awards. USCIS begins mass reviews.
How the fraud scheme worked
A network of 200 people + consulting firms sold “achievement packages” for $30–50k.
$50k scheme: network of 200 people + Stevie/Globee
According to attorney Rahul Reddy, a network of about 200 people was identified:
- Published in low-quality international journals (pay-to-publish)
- Mutually cited each other to inflate citation counts (citation rings)
- Co-authored each other’s papers
- Received press releases from the same PR agencies
- Massively received Globee and Stevie awards
Consulting companies mentioned in discussions: “EB1A Experts”, “Smart Green Card” and others. Services cost $30,000–50,000 and included:
What attorneys say
“I warned you: Globee and Stevie Awards are not valid EB1A evidence. I called out the dangers of paid judging roles, fake awards, and ghostwritten media when others were promoting them as ‘quick wins.’ Now, USCIS is cracking down - and it’s not just denials, it’s revocations after approval.”
Translation: "I warned: Globee and Stevie Awards are invalid evidence for EB-1A. I spoke about the danger of paid judging roles, fake awards and ghostwritten articles when others promoted them as 'quick wins.' Now USCIS is tightening the screws — and this is not only denials, but revocations after approval."
Sharif Silmi (YouTube, November 2023)
“It is utter nonsense that one who is at the foremost highest level of his or her field goes out and judges a Globee or Stevie award in order to qualify for EB1A… any adjudicator worth his or her salt will sense that your case is very weak once they see that you are depending upon judging a Globee or Stevie award.”
Translation: "It is absolute nonsense that a person at the highest level of their field goes out and judges a Globee or Stevie award in order to qualify for EB1A... any competent adjudicator will sense your case is weak once they see you depend on [judging](/t/48) a Globee or Stevie award."
Thomas V. Allen (Business Today)
“Think twice before paying for an EB-1A case builder… They charge thousands to create ‘evidence’ to help you meet the regulatory criteria. But here’s the reality: USCIS is cracking down.”
Translation: "Think twice before paying 'case builders' for EB-1A... They charge thousands to create 'evidence.' But the reality is: USCIS is cracking down."
“When I see Globee or Stevie Awards paired with TechBullion publications and other templated credentials, I immediately recognize the case was artificially constructed - and USCIS has learned to spot this too.”
Translation: "When I see Globee or Stevie Awards paired with TechBullion publications and other templated credentials, I immediately recognize the case was artificially constructed — and USCIS has learned to spot this too."
What this means: TechBullion is a site with paid publications, often used to "inflate" media presence. An attorney sees the pattern: Stevie + TechBullion = red flag for USCIS.
Nicole Gunara (Manifest Law)
“Common awards such as Globees or Stevies, though respected, may be less convincing to USCIS at the final merits review. These awards are often considered less weighty if not supported by additional evidence.”
Recommendation
"Aim for less common awards: even if they come from a smaller pool of candidates, unique or niche awards may carry greater weight."
Balanced position
Some experts call for a more measured approach:
“Stevie Awards, with proper positioning, can still benefit startup founders in O-1 visa cases - if you detail the selection process and significance of the award.”
Translation: "Stevie Awards, if presented correctly, can still benefit startup founders in O-1 visa cases — if you detail the selection process and the award's significance."
What this means: Not every Stevie/Globee award automatically means fraud. The key is not to overstate prestige, support the award with other achievements, and not make it the petition's centerpiece.
Official Globee Awards position
After the scandal Globee Awards added a disclaimer on their site:
“The Globee Awards do not assist, endorse, or facilitate immigration applications, visa approvals, or employment-related matters. The Globee Awards has no affiliations or tie-ups with any immigration or visa agents.”
Translation: "Globee Awards do not assist, endorse, or facilitate immigration applications, visa approvals, or employment-related matters. Globee Awards has no affiliations with immigration or visa agents."
Globee Awards President San Madan: “Winners reflect real achievement strength; our awards aim to recognize genuine impact.”
How USCIS detects fraud
AI detection, pattern analysis, I-485 interviews — USCIS is tightening the screws.
How USCIS catches it: AI, patterns, I-485 interviews
AI detection (new in 2025)
Rahul Reddy (Reddy Neumann Brown PC)
“USCIS is using AI, they are connecting the dots between petitions that use these same services again and again and seeing repeated language, seeing the same awards being used, seeing the same media publishing being done.”
Translation: "USCIS uses AI; they connect the dots between petitions using the same services repeatedly and see repeated wording, the same awards being used, the same media publications."
I-485 interviews as a verification tool
Rahul Reddy noted a sharp increase in adjustment of status interview requests for EB-1A:
“I’ve seen a string of people getting interviewed in a very short period of time and all of them are EB1A… some of them have been interviewed again on the EB1A aspect.”
USCIS methods
- AI pattern analysis — automated analysis of repeated wording and links
- Cross-referencing — checking Globee/Stevie winners lists for overlaps
- Citation analysis — detecting citation rings
- Media verification — checking authenticity of “media publications”
- Repeat interviews — even after I-140 approval
Red flags for USCIS:
- Several petitioners with identical Globee/Stevie awards
- Publications on TechBullion, in low-quality journals
- Press releases from the same PR agencies
- Co-authorships with people from the same “circle”
- Judging in Globee/Stevie without relevant experience
Statistics: drop in approval rates
Comparison of approval rates: EB-1A, O-1A, O-1B (data 2024–2025).
| Visa | Approval Rate | RFE Rate | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| EB-1A | 67% (Q3 2025) | 40–50% | Sharp tightening: −15 pp over 2 years |
| O-1A | ~80% (FY2024) | ~25% | Stable, slight tightening |
| O-1B | ~83% (FY2024) | ~18% | Highest approval rate |
According to Boundless Immigration (October 2025):
Detailed analysis
- EB1A backlog: 16,000 — record high
- Backlog grew by 67% — from 1.5 to 2.5 months pending cases
- RFE and NOID surge — cases pending 2–3 months for additional evidence
Template denials: According to Reddit reports, USCIS has developed standardized denial responses specifically for cases involving Globee, Stevie and TITAN awards. Officers use prewritten language for denials.
Consequences
What is important to understand
Criminal cases concern scheme organizers, not ordinary petitioners. Texas case (DOJ): charges were brought against Abdul Hadi Murshid, Muhammad Salman Nasir and two companies. Organizers face up to 20 years in prison for visa fraud. Dallas, Texas — one of the hubs of “body shop” agencies.
NOIR — Notice of Intent to Revoke. This is not an automatic revocation: 30 days are given to respond. If awards were obtained honestly — there is a chance to defend.
INA S.212(a)(6)(C)(i) — permanent bar. If intentional fraud is proven, an applicant can be permanently barred from US immigration. Honest receipt of an award is a different situation, but proof will be required.
If your awards are genuine. The scandal concerns organized schemes. If you legitimately received an award, did not participate in citation rings and did not purchase a “profile” — the situation is different. Key: documents proving the reality of participation and victory.
Table of “problematic” awards
After the scandal the following awards are under suspicion.
| Award | Status | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Globee Awards | Toxic | Center of the scandal, pay-to-play |
| Stevie Awards | Toxic | Center of the scandal, pay-to-play |
| Global Recognition Awards | Suspicious | Possibly linked to Globee |
| “International Business Awards” | Check | Many are pay-to-play |
| TITAN Awards | Suspicious | Template denials from USCIS |
| “Who’s Who” directories | Vanity awards | BBB warns since 2008 |
Recommendations
What to do if you have or planned to get these awards.
Have Stevie/Globee? Don't make them the center of the petition
- DO NOT make it the petition’s centerpiece — high risk of RFE or denial
- Strengthen the case with other, more weighty achievements
- If included — explain the context of receiving it in the cover letter
- Gather documents proving actual participation and victory
- Consult an attorney
Focus on legitimate awards with transparent selection.
Planned to apply to Stevie/Globee? Choose another award
- Not recommended — risk outweighs benefit
- Focus on legitimate awards with transparent selection
- Look for awards without nomination fees or with minimal fees
- Consider competitiveness: number of nominees vs winners
Organization, history, jury, competitiveness — what to look for.
Checklist: how to distinguish a good award from pay-to-play
- Organization with a long history and reputation in the industry
- Transparent selection process (not pay-to-play)
- Independent jury of experts with verifiable credentials
- Low percentage of winners (competitive selection)
- Media coverage by independent outlets (not PR materials)
- Previous winners with real recognition in the field
Forum discussions
Reddit (r/USCIS, r/eb_1a) and Team Blind — where the wave of discussion began.
What Reddit says about Stevie/Globee
“Check on Globee awards list 2024 and 2025 - all the Indian folks on that list manipulated their profiles to secure the green cards fraudulently.”
Users discovered a pattern: the Globee winners list almost entirely consists of people who applied for EB-1A.
“A list of over 200 individuals who have been co-authoring each other’s work, citing each other, publishing in very low-credibility international journals. Many of them can be found on Globee and Stevie awards.”
A whole fraud network: the same people wrote recommendation letters for each other, cited each other's papers.
“The Stevie Awards: A Pay-to-Play Scheme in Business Awards… The $2.1B Trophy Scam.”
Analysis of the Stevie Awards business model as a "pay-and-win" scheme.
Legal precedents
Key court decisions USCIS relies on when evaluating awards:
- Kazarian v. USCIS (9th Cir. 2010) — established the two-step analysis. The court confirmed: “being listed among thousands of successful people in a frequently published directory such as ‘Who’s Who’ is not an award showing national or international recognition”
- Buletini v. INS (E.D. Mich. 1994) — one award can be enough for the criterion if it is truly significant
- Eguchi v. Kelly — USCIS can consider the limited pool when evaluating an award (the “Rookie of the Year” award was rejected as limited to newcomers)
Silence of major media
Notable fact: independent editorial coverage of Stevie and Globee Awards in Forbes, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, TechCrunch and Wired is completely absent. The only NYT mention is a 2003 article about the founding of the Stevie Awards.
Almost 100% of “coverage” consists of press releases from winning companies. Business Standard (India) explicitly states under articles: “No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content”.
Sources
All sources for the Stevie/Globee section
Official:
- DOJ: Texas case (May 2025)
- USCIS: Press release on the investigation
- Stevie Awards: Retroactive Disqualification (Facebook)
- Globee Awards FAQ
- Globee Awards: Nomination Guidelines
- BBB: How to spot vanity awards
- Boundless: USCIS Q3 2025 Statistics
Attorneys and legal resources: - Silmi Law: EB1A Crackdown
- Sharif Silmi: Globee/Stevie judging (YouTube)
- Chris M. Ingram: EB-1 Visa Fraud Part 2
- Chris M. Ingram: EB-1 Visa Fraud Part 3
- Reddy Neumann Brown: Rise in Scam Services
- Reddy Neumann Brown: USCIS Revoking EB-1A (YouTube)
- Locke Immigration: EB-1A Scam Services Exposed
- Beyond Border Global: Negative Press 2025
- Beyond Border Global: Top Founder Awards
Media: - Financial Express (June 13, 2025)
- Business Today (June 14, 2025)
- CBS Texas: Immigration fraud scheme
- Business Standard
Forums and social media: - Reddit r/USCIS: Fake awards treasure trove
- Reddit r/eb_1a: Scam journals and awards
- Reddit r/eb_1a: Globee judge experience
- Team Blind: Fake EB1A profiles
- Team Blind: USCIS revoking visas
- AndhraFriends: EB1A fraud discussion
- LinkedIn: Amber G. Davis
- LinkedIn: Guillermo Sanchez - Trophy Scam
Additional: - Debarghya Das: Ultimate EB-1A Guide
- Wikipedia: Vanity awards
Frequently asked questions
Meeting a criterion does not mean the visa is approved. Final Merits can change everything.
Criterion counted but denied on Final Merits — how?
This is a real scenario. USCIS evaluates a petition in two stages: first it checks the criteria (need 3 out of 8/10), then makes a Final Merits Determination — an overall assessment of whether “you are an outstanding person.”
An award may pass the first stage, but in the second the officer may decide it does not prove your “sustained national or international acclaim.” Here is how it looked in a real denial:
From a real denial
"The record shows that the petitioner was the recipient of a 2024 Diploma of Laureate of the 1st Degree... However, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has achieved or maintained sustained national or international acclaim due to his receipt of this honor. Nor has he demonstrated that he is at the very top of his field of endeavor."
Translation: Documents confirm the petitioner received a Diploma of Laureate 1st Degree... However, it was not demonstrated that he achieved or maintained sustained national/international recognition as a result of this honor. Nor was it demonstrated that he is at the very top of his field.
An award is present, but the officer did not see that it makes you "top of the field." One award is insufficient for the overall picture of an outstanding professional. **How to avoid:** - Do not rely on a single criterion — even if it seems strong - Build a narrative: award + publications + media + recommendation letters = overall picture - Explain in the cover letter how the award fits into your career trajectoryOne strong award can work, but 2–3 reduce RFE risk dramatically.
Is one award enough to meet the criterion?
One award can be sufficient, but it does not guarantee approval by an officer.
Critically important is not the number of awards, but their quality, level of recognition and compliance with requirements. The award should be given for outstanding achievements in your field at a national or international level by an organization with recognized reputation.
The officer evaluates not just the fact of receiving the award, but evidence that it confirms your outstanding status. An award must not just exist — it must be recognized by professionals at a high level.
Practical recommendations:
Detailed guide
- If the award is strong — one may suffice with convincing documentation
- 2–3 relevant awards create a more persuasive dossier and lower RFE risk
- Even a mediocre second award significantly strengthens the position — shows sustained recognition by different organizations
If you doubt the award’s strength:
- Work on other criteria in parallel (membership, judging, publications, media)
- 3 proven criteria are the minimum for consideration, but not a guarantee of approval
- In the cover letter, explain in detail why this award constitutes recognition of outstanding achievements
- Compare with US equivalents, show prestige through industry context
Since October 2024 USCIS officially accepts team awards — but you still must prove your role.
Will team awards be counted (KVN, contests, festivals)?
Update October 2024. USCIS released new rules: team awards are now explicitly accepted for EB-1A and O-1. But you must prove your key role in the team.
Now they are countable, but requirements remain. Policy Manual says: “Nothing precludes the person from relying on a team award, provided the person is one of the recipients of the award.” Simple mention as a team member is insufficient.
Typical denial language:
-
“The award was presented to the team/organization, and the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary was individually recognized.”
-
“The submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s individual contribution was the primary reason for the award.”
-
“Membership in an award-winning team does not automatically qualify as an individual award.”
Officer red flags: -
Certificate lists 10+ people or company name, not your name
-
You were a junior member without a leadership role
-
Awards are your only criterion (no “safety net”)
What to prove: -
Your personal role and critical contribution to the victory
-
Personal recognition within the team (not just “participant”)
-
Concrete metrics of your contribution
Documents to collect: -
Recommendation letters from team leaders describing your role
-
Documents proving your position (scriptwriter, team captain, curator)
-
Memos from producers/editors about your critical role
-
Publications where you are singled out within the team
Ideal wording in a letter:
“[Name] was the lead architect of X component, without which the award would not have been possible. His/her work accounted for the core innovation recognized by the award committee.”
How to strengthen a team award: -
Collect publicity materials mentioning your name (press releases, interviews). If none — create an internal memo from leadership
-
Dedicate a whole section in the Petition Letter to your role with data: “I developed algorithm X, which improved performance by 200%; this was cited by the award committee as the key innovation”
-
Show causal chain: your work → project success → award
-
Consider using the team award as supplementary evidence, and focus on individual criteria (patents, publications, judging)
Example: victory in a comedy league as a writer may work if you prove your material was key to the win.
Conclusion: team awards can technically be counted, but require thorough preparation and RFE risk is high. Always build the case so this criterion is not the petition’s sole support. Aim for at least 3 criteria, with at least one being individual achievements.
Awards are one of 8 criteria; many successful petitions pass without them.
Can they deny if the awards criterion is not met?
The awards criterion is just one of 8 for O-1 (and 10 for EB-1A). It is not mandatory to meet this one.
For O-1 you need to show 3 of 8 criteria. For EB-1A — 3 of 10.
If you have no awards:
- Focus on other criteria: media, membership, high salary, critical role
- Many successful petitions proceed without the awards criterion
- Participation in a contest without winning is not an award
Tip: if awards are weak or absent — better concentrate on other criteria than spend time trying to prove insignificant achievements.
One strong award can be enough, but preferably 3–5 of varying levels.
How many awards are needed for the criterion?
From the community: “Is one significant award enough to close the Awards category, or are multiple required?”
(Note: the original question mentioned Gold Stevie — that award was discredited in 2025 and is not recommended.)
Answer: one very strong award can theoretically be enough, but in practice it’s better to have 3–5.
Why multiple are better:
- The criterion is written in plural: “prizes or awards”
- Multiple awards show systematic recognition, not a one-off
- If one award is challenged in an RFE — others remain
Recommendation: “In practice, 3–5 awards is fine” — but quality beats quantity. Better 2 strong awards than 7 weak ones.
A company’s place in a Forbes ranking is not an award, but can be used for critical role.
Is a place in a Forbes ranking an award?
From the community: “For example, is the company’s 7th place in a Forbes ranking an award?”
No. A ranking is not an award. It’s an evaluation/ranking, not a prize for achievement.
How it can be used:
- Critical role — if you are an executive of a top-ranked company
- Contribution to the field — as additional evidence of the company’s significance
- Final Merits — for the overall picture
The same applies to: “Top-100 companies”, “Best Employer of the Year” (unless it’s a jury-based competition).
Recommendation letters are not required for every award — only if the award itself is weak.
Do you need a recommendation letter for each award?
From the community: “Should each award be supported by a quote from a rec letter or can some be left without?”
Answer: “If the criterion is strong on its own (for example, a major award), you do not need to force letters for each. Everything should be organic and not overloaded.”
When a recommendation letter is needed:
-
The award is little-known — you need to explain its significance
-
The award is regional — confirm its weight in the profession
-
An unconventional award — e.g., a professional certificate
When a letter is not needed: -
Very well-known award (Red Dot, iF Design, state awards)
-
There are detailed documents from the organizers
-
The award is well-documented already
Tip: Better one strong letter explaining 2–3 awards in the context of your career than a separate letter for each award.
Wikipedia is weak evidence. Use it as a supplement, not a basis.
Can Wikipedia be used to prove an award?
From the community: “Using Wikipedia to prove awards is a bit dubious. If the award is significant, there will be many stronger sources besides Wikipedia.”
Problems with Wikipedia:
-
An officer may not consider it authoritative
-
Articles are editable by anyone
-
If nothing else exists besides Wikipedia — the award is likely weak
How to use it properly: -
As a supplement to main documents (certificate, organizer letter)
-
To show the award’s history and known laureates
-
For quick context if needed
Conclusion: If the only proof of an award’s significance is a Wikipedia page, reconsider how strong the award is.
Social media mentions can be used as supplementary evidence, but not as primary proof.
Are social media mentions (Twitter/X, Instagram) acceptable?
From the community: “I attach a tweet from the Canadian embassy congratulating me on the award. Is that fine?”
Another question: “If a very famous person wrote about me/on X (Twitter) — should I include it?”
Answer: Can be used as additional evidence, but not as the main proof.
When social media helps:
-
Official account of an organization (embassy, large company, well-known festival)
-
Verified account of a famous person in your field
-
As a supplement to primary documents (certificate, media)
When it doesn’t help: -
Personal accounts without verification
-
If it’s the only “proof” of the award
-
Reposts and likes (not recognition)
Tip: Make a dated screenshot with URL and follower count. Add as an Exhibit to main award documents.
A PhD is not an award by itself, but related achievements can qualify.
Is a PhD an award?
From the community: “I’ve heard PhD can be used for the awards criterion (EB-1A)”
No. “A PhD itself cannot be considered an award, but related activities along that path can close several items.”
What from a PhD can count as awards:
-
Doctoral dissertation awards
-
Best paper award at a defense
-
Competitive research grants (if selection-based)
Where a PhD fits: -
Publications — in the Publications criterion
-
Membership in academic societies — in the membership criterion
-
Teaching — in judging (if evaluating work)
A participation certificate is not an award.
Participation in a festival without winning — is that an award?
No. Participation without a prize is not an award for USCIS.
The criterion requires “receipt of prizes or awards” — getting a certificate of participation is not a prize.
What you can do:
- Use participation as supplementary evidence in another criterion
- If the festival selection was competitive — you might attempt to argue it’s an award (but this is weak)
An acceptance to a photo contest is selection for exhibition, not an award.
Is acceptance to a photo contest an award? (for photographers)
From the community: “How to describe acceptances of photos to contests? Do they count as awards?”
No. “Acceptance” is a shortlist, do not try to present them as awards. Acceptance means you were selected for exhibition and that’s it. It is not an award.
Where it can be used:
- Exhibition criterion — if your works were exhibited
- Final Merits — as additional evidence
What works for photographers: FIAP medals (gold, silver, bronze), wins in international photo contests with juried awards, Best in Category.
There is no formal time limit, but a 2007 award without recent achievements will raise questions.
Is there an expiry for awards?
No formal expiry. From the community: “There are many examples where awards 10+ years old were considered. But other criteria must be present.”
What matters:
- Show continuity of achievements, not a single old award followed by nothing
- For athletes timelines are stricter: 3–5 years
- If all awards are suddenly from 2024–2025 with a prior void — it may look like “tailoring for visa”
Red flag: all awards suddenly in 2024–2025 after a long quiet period. That can look like “manufacturing” the case.
Recommendation: show trajectory — awards across years + other criteria (articles, media) in earlier periods.
Grants are better placed under contribution, but if competitively awarded they might count as awards.
Are grants and scholarships awards?
Controversial. From the community: “Attorneys told us grants don’t fit awards well. But they still included them — more like contribution.”
Why grants are problematic:
-
A grant is funding for future work, while an award rewards past achievement
-
Fellowships (Fulbright, Bolashak) fund study, not achievement per se
-
An officer may say: “This is a fellowship, not an award”
When it may work: -
There was a public competitive selection with a jury
-
You can show % selection (e.g., 5% of applicants got the grant)
-
MacArthur Fellowship — an example of a very strong grant-as-award
Alternative: place the grant under contribution to the field — it fits more naturally there.
Conference participation is not an award; Best Paper Award is.
Is a conference counted as an award?
Participation alone — no. From the community: “Attending a conference without an award is not an achievement.”
What does NOT work:
-
Certificate of conference participation
-
“Invited to speak” (without an award)
-
Publication of abstracts in conference proceedings
What works: -
Best Paper Award — award for the best paper
-
Outstanding Presentation Award — for a talk
-
Best Poster Award — for a poster
Important: the award must be from the conference organizers with selection criteria. “Invited speaker” or “keynote” is not an award, though it may fit other criteria (judging, contribution).
Alternative (controversial): some attorneys recommend treating selection of a talk that is later published as an article as an award argument — but this requires very strong justification and not all officers accept it.
Where to place talks without awards: Publications or Original contributions.
Honorary certificates from ministries are questionable due to mass issuance.
Will honorary ministry certificates be counted?
Controversial. From the community: “Have there been cases when honorary certificates from federal ministries were counted as awards for EB-1A? Consultants say yes, but doubts remain. They are often issued in large numbers — no ‘exclusivity.’”
Problem: mass issuance. If certificates are given by the thousands — it’s hard to prove excellence.
When it can work:
- Provide statistics: how many in the country and how many received the certificate
- The certificate is for a specific achievement, not “years of service”
- There is media coverage of your award
Tip: use ministry certificates as additional Final Merits evidence, not the main award.
An award for saving lives is better used under media or contribution than as an award.
Award for saving lives (for medical professionals)
Controversial. Community question: “A surgeon has an award for saving lives — can it be counted as the awards criterion?”
Problem: an award for saving lives is recognition of service rather than a competitive prize for excellence.
When it can work:
-
Award from a government clinic for work there — may be counted
-
There was a competitive selection or specified criteria of excellence
Better alternatives for medics: -
Media — press stories about your work and lives saved
-
Contribution to the field — new techniques, research, teaching other doctors
-
Scientific publications — articles in medical journals
Tip: if the award is non-governmental or simply labeled “for saving lives” — place it in Media or Contribution. There it fits more naturally and persuasively.
Materials dated after the petition filing date cannot be used to respond to an RFE.
Can you use awards received after filing?
No. From the community: “If you file an EB-1A petition and get an RFE, you cannot use materials (publications, awards, etc.) received after the petition filing date.”
USCIS rule: eligibility is assessed as of the filing date. Anything occurring after is not considered.
From a denial (artist) — Matter of Katigbak
"It is noted that the filing date of your Form I-140 is February 21, 2020. The above-mentioned evidence regarding receipt of awards and certificates are all dated after your filing date. Yet according to the matter of Matter of Katigbak, a petitioner cannot establish eligibility under this criterion based on the expectation of future significance. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. S. 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Therefore, prizes or awards dated after the filing date, are not probative."
Context: The person filed the petition in Feb 2020. In response to RFE submitted awards dated July–Nov 2020. The officer rejected ALL these awards — they were received after the filing date.
Which awards were rejected:
-
“My America” exhibition diploma (July–August 2020)
-
Artavita Online Art Contest - Runner up & Winner (September 2020)
-
Artios Gallery Certificate (October–November 2020)
-
Artexpo New York acceptance (August 2020)
What to do: -
Before filing, collect as much evidence as possible
-
If you expect an award — wait until you receive it before filing
-
In response to an RFE, strengthen existing evidence rather than adding new post-filing awards
-
New awards can be used only in a new petition (re-filing)
Childhood/student awards are risky — officers usually look at the top 2–3 items, put the strongest first.
Can you use childhood/student awards?
Not recommended. From the community: “Attorneys advised not to include school and university awards. Officers may not credit them.”
Why problematic:
-
Competed against students, not industry professionals
-
An officer may see this as stretching the case
-
For athletes, youth awards rarely count
Exceptions: -
International Olympiads (IMO, IOI) — these are serious
-
Awards received after PhD are generally accepted
-
Highly prestigious student competitions with professional juries
Lifehack: if you want to show a “path to excellence” — briefly mention in Final Merits, but not as the main criterion.
A nomination can be counted, but carries much less weight than a win.
Is a nomination without a win counted?
Depends on context. From the community: “A nomination can be considered, but weights vary — each case must be examined.”
When a nomination may work:
-
A very prestigious competition (nomination for a major international prize is stronger than a win at a regional festival)
-
Finalist among thousands of entrants
-
Honorable Mention in an international competition
When better not to use: -
Nomination in an obscure contest
-
Shortlist without a final
-
Passing an initial selection but not reaching the final
Tip: if it’s your only “prize” — put it in Final Merits, not the main awards criterion.
A misspelling/transliteration error on an award is not critical — include an explanation.
Is a name spelling error on the award a problem?
Not critical. From the community: “I had an award spelled Oleg versus Oleh. Attach an explanation about transliteration.”
What to do:
- Attach a short explanation (1 paragraph) about transliteration differences
- Note that Alisa/Alise are the same name in different transliteration systems
- You can reference official transliteration rules
Officers understand transliteration variability from Cyrillic. The main thing is to explain.
You cannot duplicate the same evidence across two criteria — officers in RFE explicitly say “no.”
Can the same award be used for two criteria?
No. From a real RFE: “Can the same evidence be used for two criteria? The officer says — no.”
What happens with duplication:
- The officer may decline to count both criteria
- Gives the impression you have little evidence
- Looks like an attempt to “inflate” the case
Correct approach: one piece of evidence — one criterion. If an award is strong — place it under Awards. Media coverage about the award can go under Media (these are separate pieces of evidence).
Being a laureate without a place (1st/2nd/3rd) is counted — main point is to prove the competition level.
Is a laureate (no place) counted?
Yes, it counts. From the community: “Not all awards have places. A laureate counts. But you must prove the award’s level.”
What to attach:
- Regulations of the award with selection criteria
- Number of laureates chosen
- Number of applicants
- Who else was a laureate (known names)
The main point — show that “laureate” is not “participant” but real recognition among a limited number of winners.
Awards of pupils/students can be used, but under contribution, not as the awards criterion.
Can you use awards of your students/mentees?
Yes, but in another criterion. From the community: “If you apply as a coach — students’ victories count. If you apply as an athlete — your own wins count.”
Where to place:
- Contribution to the field — students’ victories as the result of your methodology
- Critical role — if you are a coach/mentor in an organization
Does not work: placing students’ wins as your personal awards in the Awards criterion.
Green card interview
At the interview they may ask about awards even if you did not submit that criterion.
What questions do they ask about awards at the interview?
Real examples of interview questions:
From an interview
"Do you know that people applying for this visa have international-level awards? Do you have such?"
Possible answer: "No, I do not have international-level awards, but I am one of the top specialists in my country" — then explain using other criteria.
Other practical questions:
- Who interviewed you for the media, where, when
- How well do you know the journalists
- Do you have international awards (even if the criterion was not filed)
- About your book/publications
- About recommendation letters
Important. “Petitions are studied thoroughly, with notes. Recommendation letters and criteria like awards, judging and contribution are important.”
Tip: Be ready to explain your position even for a criterion you did not file. Officers can probe your overall expertise.
Examples of successful profession-specific cases
Real community examples — which awards worked for which professions.
Three “business-carnival” awards were counted. The secret — documentation.
Massage therapist: 3 awards = approval (while a vocalist with same awards was denied)
Criterion counted! Here is what was submitted:
Awards:
- American Business Carnival — “Businesswoman of the Year” (Beauty & Wellness Services) — 2025
- “Best Talents” All-Russian National Award — Beauty Talent — 2024
- “New Names” — “Massage Therapist No. 1 in Russia” — 2024
Documentation (the key to success): - Award certificates
- Letters from jury chairs/organizers
- Photos
- Media publications
- Website screenshots
What this means for you: Even “business-carnival” style awards and “best talents” can work! The key is proper documentation: letters from organizers + media + a complete package. Without that, similar awards are often denied.
Contrast: same awards — different outcome
A vocalist submitted similar awards (Best Talent Russia 2024, TOP BEST PERSONA Award, DIVA VOICE World) — and was denied. Reason: “USCIS is not required to rely on the self-promotional material of the organizer or awarding entity… The record lacks pertinent background information about the award from another reliable source.”
Difference: the massage therapist had letters from organizers + media + screenshots. The vocalist had only material from the awards’ websites.
Gold + Silver at ECDMA = 2 criteria. But another applicant with the same award was denied.
Digital marketer: 2 criteria with ECDMA (and why another was denied)
Real case: two criteria counted!
The petitioner applied as a Digital Marketing Strategist and received Gold + Silver Medals at ECDMA Global Awards 2025.
What ECDMA Global Awards are:
-
An international award in E-Commerce and Digital Marketing
-
Open to participants worldwide
-
Professional industry jury
-
Public winners list on the website
Documents provided (full package): -
Gold Medal Certificate + Silver Medal Certificate
-
Official Notification Email
-
Public Winners Page (public winners list)
-
ECDMA Confirmation Letter
-
Competition Entry Requirements
-
Professional Standards Documentation
-
Category Evaluation Criteria
-
Evaluation Process Documentation
-
Jury Roster
-
Individual Jury Member Profiles
What this means for marketers: ECDMA is an example of an award that can be fully documented. Note: not just “certificate + letter”, but a complete package including evaluation criteria, selection process and profiles of EACH jury member. This level of documentation leaves little doubt for an officer.
One was approved — another was torn apart: the same ECDMA Global Awards 2025 in another case received an RFE. The officer performed a mini-investigation:
RFE: ECDMA Global Awards
"A search for 'ECDMA Global Awards' does not yield results in major media... The petitioner submits screenshots of the award website. The About page indicates that 'this is the first event ever'... This indicates the award is not yet established in the field..."
RFE: about media and paid PR"Some of the submitted links were not reachable... AP News and Digital Journal articles display 'Paid Content from Newsfile'... Tech Bullion is not a major media publication comparable to The New York Times or The Washington Post..."
What this means: ECDMA appears in many approvals — it's a workable award. But when an officer wants to nitpick, they will. Cases show: one person got approval with this award; another submitted the same award and the new officer rejected it. Therefore: community reports of "I got approval with X" do not guarantee the same result for you. Approval can overlook issues; denial will exploit any weakness. Other awards for marketing: Cannes Lions, Effie Awards, Webby Awards, The Drum Awards — same principle: full documentation of selection and criteria is required.Eight criteria closed by a clothing designer with 3D visualization awards. Awards strengthened the overall picture.
Clothing designer: closed 8 criteria including awards
From a case
"I applied as a clothing designer with innovation in 3D visualization of clothing. I closed 8 criteria: Awards, Judging, Critical role, Original contribution, Associations, Media, Publications, Exhibitions"
Conclusion: Even if awards are not the main criterion — they strengthen the overall picture.
Seven criteria for a writer. Awards were one of the strongest.
Writer: 7 criteria, awards especially important for creatives
From a case
"I applied as a writer. I closed 7 criteria: awards, unions, judging, media, publications, contribution to the industry, book exhibitions."
Conclusion: For creative professions awards are particularly important and are often accepted.
Six awards for films and novels — all rejected. Two critical mistakes.
[details=“Filmmaker: 6 awards rejected — what was missing”]
From a denial (film + literature)
"The petitioner provided the following as evidence: Awards for films: Hooked - NA IGRE, Kilometer Zero, The Last Weekend, Total Transformation. Awards for novels: 'Bury me behind the baseboard', 'Chronicles of a slacker'. The evidence does not demonstrate that the prizes awarded to the various works of the petitioner are nationally or internationally recognized prizes. Furthermore, in order for USCIS to determine if the petitioner has met the plain language of this criterion, the petitioner must indicate the field of endeavor and show that the awards are for excellence in the field."
Problems: 1) No documentation on the awards’ significance 2) Field of endeavor not defined 3) No demonstrated link between awards and field.
Additional problem — student awards:
From same denial
"The petitioner has submitted prizes or awards received by the petitioner that appear to have been received while pursuing an education. Generally, such honors are not considered to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, because they are generally given to students or early career professionals and inherently exclude established professionals who have already achieved excellence in the field."
Key: Awards received during studies are usually not considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes, because they typically exclude established professionals from competition.
Lesson for filmmakers:
- Festival awards (Sundance, SXSW, Tribeca) require the same documentation
- Clearly define the field: director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer
- Show the link of EACH award to your field
- Student festival awards are weak
Examples of fixes: - Provide documentation of festival prestige, selection criteria and independent coverage
- Show the role you played in the film singled out by the award
Three FIAP golds + international salons = approval. What worked.
[details=“Photographer: 3 FIAP golds + salons = criterion counted”]
Successful case:
“Award criterion closed: three golds (FIAP salons), plus various international contests of varying sizes, two Best in Category, several silver and bronze, inclusion in shortlists, many smaller awards.”
But 20+ awards without documentation = denial:
From a denial (20+ photo awards)
"Evidence submitted: Diploma from Russian ROS Photo; SERENDIPITY PHOTO AWARDS 2024 - Sri Lanka; PATHSHALA 10th International Salon 2024; LISBOA 2024 FIAP; Circuit DESERT FOX 2024 Managua; Exhibition SNOWY ISLAND 2024; RUSSIAN ART AWARDS 2023; Best International Child & Family Photographers Award; Letters of Recommendation from Rarindra Prakarsa, Paola Aldewliy, Ksenia Zasetskaya, Elena Gudilina. The submitted evidence is insufficient to establish that these awards are a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize. The evidence did not clearly demonstrate that your awards are prestigious, were given by prestigious events or organizations, or is coveted by all distinguished photographers."
Problems: ~20 awards (including FIAP Lisboa) + 4 recommendation letters — denial. Not proven that awards are "coveted by distinguished photographers." Additional problem — website screenshots: From same denial"You also provided your own explanation and narrative about the awards with screenshots of the information from their websites, but without objectivity, these explanations have little evidentiary weight. Additionally, you submitted online news media reports, but there is no probative evidence to establish the articles are considered major media."
Key: Your own descriptions + screenshots = low weight. Online media must be proven to be "major media."
Important concept from this RFE:
Definition of recognition
"A prize or an award does not garner national or international recognition from the competition in which it is awarded, nor is it derived from the individual or group that issued the award. Rather, national and international recognition results through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally."
Key: Recognition of an award is NOT established by the competition or the organizer alone. Recognition = awareness of the accolade by the professional community nationally or internationally. This must be proven via independent sources.
But the person fixed it and defended successfully!
After this RFE the petitioner redid documentation: added correct translations, independent sources about the awards’ prestige, proof that the media are major. As a result the criterion was counted.
Takeaways for photographers:
- FIAP and international salons are well-recognized but require documentation
- Number of awards does not replace quality of documentation
- Need independent sources on each award’s prestige
- Recommendation letters must be backed by documents
- Even after a tough RFE you can overturn it if you correct mistakes
Blogger — a YouTube play button was counted as an award.
Blogger: YouTube play button as an award — works!
From a case
"Yes, a YouTube play button fits the awards criterion. Blogging can be proven similarly to journalism and marketing professions."
What is needed: Show that the content is professional and in your field, add media about the channel, letters from industry experts.
Startup founder — TEDx + Y Combinator = counted as awards.
[details=“Startup founder: TEDx + Y Combinator = counted as awards”]
From a case
"A TED talk counts as an award-type recognition. Investments from major funds and Y Combinator."
What works:- Winning an accelerator with competitive selection (YC, 500 Startups)
- TEDx talks
- Business awards (if there is a real competition)
Teacher — even one Teacher of the Year award can be sufficient.
[details=“Teacher: one Teacher of the Year = criterion met”]
From an approved case
"The petitioner first received a Teacher of the Year award in 2022. Similarly, the petitioner's work has received awards and/or was shown at exhibits from May 2022. The plain language of this criterion has been met."
Translation: "The petitioner received Teacher of the Year in 2022. The petitioner's works also received awards and/or were exhibited since May 2022. The plain language of this criterion has been met."
Key takeaway:
One award (Teacher of the Year) can be sufficient to satisfy the criterion. The officer did not demand dozens of awards — one meaningful prize plus additional achievements (exhibitions) was enough.
But the same award can fail without documentation:
From a denial (Best Teacher Artist 2022–2024)
"The petitioner provided evidence of being recognized as the Best Teacher Artist of the Year for 2022, 2023, 2024. The petitioner provided information about the award that comes directly from the awarding entity. The evidence does not establish the significance and magnitude of the award and the extent to which the winners are recognized beyond the issuing body. The record does not contain any other evidence related to the award, such as the eligibility criteria, the number of entrants, or evidence showing that the recipients of the award were announced in major media."
Problem: Three years in a row the same award — but only information from the issuing organization. No selection criteria, no participant counts, no media. Recognition "beyond the issuing body" was not proven. Difference between approval and denial: Not quantity but quality of documentation matters. One documented Teacher of the Year > three years of the same award without independent sources. What works for teachers:- Regional or national Teacher of the Year
- Awards from professional educational associations
- Competitive grants for education research
- Recognition of teaching methods at conferences
Must include: selection criteria, number of nominees, media about the award, previous winners with achievements.
General pattern of successful cases. Awards are rarely the only criterion. In successful cases they are usually supported by contribution, media or judging. If awards are strong — they strongly help the Final Merits determination.