We analyze the judging criterion for O-1 and EB-1A: what USCIS considers “participation as a judge,” what evidence they accept, examples from real RFEs and approvals, Final Merits, and FAQ.
What the judging criterion is
This analysis is about the judging criterion. Other criteria are in the full guide.
The idea is simple: you must show that you were invited to evaluate the work of others in your professional field. Not just “sit on a panel,” but formally participate in assessing others’ work.
In the regulation this is criterion number 4, 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
Criterion 4: “The person’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought.”
Translation: A person’s participation, individually or as part of a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Two key points: (1) the participation must be formal — you were appointed a judge, not you decided to evaluate someone’s work on your own; (2) the field of judging must match the field of the petition.
What qualifies: peer reviewing for journals, dissertation committees, juries for competitions and awards, judging sports competitions, juries for art and architecture contests — if it’s in your field. The USCIS Policy Manual gives examples:
USCIS determines whether the person has acted as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification.
Examples of judging the work of others may include, but are not limited to:
- Peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the person to do the review, accompanied by proof that the review was actually completed;
- Peer review of abstracts or papers submitted for presentation at scholarly conferences in the respective field;
- Serving as a member of a Ph.D. dissertation committee that makes the final judgment as to whether a candidate's body of work satisfies the requirements for a doctoral degree, as evidenced by departmental records;
- Peer reviewer for government research funding programs.
Considerations: The petitioner must show that the person has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that the person actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization.
What will be accepted and what will not
You must be judging professionals at your level or higher. Evaluating student work or internal company contests will not show that you are “one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top.” USCIS explicitly writes in RFEs (Request for Evidence):
"The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 CFR 205.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 'extraordinary ability' as 'a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.' For example, judging a national contest of professionals is of far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices."
Translation: "The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 CFR 205.5(h)(3)(iv) depends on how much such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international recognition at the highest level in the petitioner's field. A lower evidentiary standard would not align with the regulatory definition of 'extraordinary ability' as 'a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.' For example, judging a national contest of professionals has far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices."
National professional contests vs novice competitions — difference in evidentiary weight.
| Will be accepted | Will not be accepted |
|---|---|
| International hackathons | Evaluation of student works |
| Juries of professional awards | Regional novice competitions |
| Peer review for academic journals | Grading homework |
| National championships | Internal company contests |
| Dissertation committees | Evaluation of interns |
Important
Being invited is not enough. USCIS wants to see that you actually participated in the evaluation. Invitation + proof of actual evaluation of works.
5 reasons you might receive an RFE on judging
From our analysis of more than 50 RFEs on this criterion. Got an RFE? Read how to respond correctly.
For USCIS a "judge" is a formal appointment. You need a document: an invitation letter on letterhead, an email from organizers, or a listing in the event program with your name.
Officers want to see not just that "you were invited" but why you were chosen. In one RFE they explicitly asked: "prove how and why you were invited to be a judge." Descriptions like "best" or "leading" without specifics aren’t enough. Facts are needed: education, experience, publications, licenses.
You apply as a construction management specialist but judged geotechnical projects? The officer will notice. Events must match your expertise, education and licenses.
An invitation to the jury is not the same as participation. You need: score sheets, meeting minutes, copies of reviews, screenshots from review systems, photos from the event, participation certificates.
The level of those you judged matters. Evaluating student work weighs much less than judging professionals at your level. USCIS states this explicitly.
What officers write in RFEs
Real RFE quotes we collected while analyzing cases. Each shows a specific officer objection.
Field doesn’t match the petition
One person filed under construction management but submitted judging in geotechnics, wind power and other adjacent fields. The officer required “clear objective evidence of your credentials” — professional education and licenses specifically in the claimed field:
"You submitted several letters offering to review detailed construction plans of very complex projects. It should be noted that one of these letters offers to perform very complex calculations related to the geotechnical direction of civil construction. Another one is a full assessment of a proposed wind power plant construction. Several more applications were submitted from different fields of knowledge. However, since all of them relate to project analysis, they do not relate to your field of construction management."
Translation: "You submitted several letters offering to review detailed construction plans of very complex projects. Note that one of these letters offers to perform very complex calculations related to the geotechnical direction of civil construction. Another is a full assessment of a proposed wind power plant construction. Several other submissions came from different fields of knowledge. However, since all relate to project analysis, they do not relate to your field of construction management."
Another case: someone filed as a FINTECH specialist but provided judging in AI, Cybersecurity and Business. The officer immediately noted the mismatch and questioned the credibility of all awards:
"You submitted evidence regarding judging performed for Business Intelligence Group - Artificial Intelligence Excellence Awards and Fortress Cybersecurity Awards, Innovations Time/Time of Innovation, Business Breakthroughs, Digital Leader Awards, and several technical reviews. As discussed in the introduction, awards lacking recognition are not found to be credible or probative evidence. In addition, the plain language requires you to have been 'a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought,' which in this case is the field of FINTECH not Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, or Business."
Translation: "You submitted evidence of judging for Business Intelligence Group - Artificial Intelligence Excellence Awards and Fortress Cybersecurity Awards, Innovations Time/Time of Innovation, Business Breakthroughs, Digital Leader Awards, and several technical reviews. As discussed earlier, awards lacking recognition are not considered credible or probative evidence. Additionally, the plain language requires that you have been 'a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought,' which here is FINTECH, not Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, or Business."
What to do
Judging must be in your field or a closely allied field. If you’re a FINTECH specialist, judging in "AI" or "Business" may not count. Check before filing: the contest/journal name should clearly relate to your field. Innovations Time, Business Intelligence Group and similar multi-industry awards are risky.
Invitation exists but participation not proven
"The evidence shows that the petitioner was invited to be a panel member of the [award names listed] awards. However, the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the petitioner actually reviewed the work of others or otherwise served as a judge of the work of others. Without additional documentary evidence, for example, evidence that the applicant scored or rendered a decision in evaluating individuals, the evidence concerning this role is insufficient."
Translation: "The evidence shows the petitioner was invited to be a panel member of the [award names listed] awards. However, the presented evidence is insufficient to show the petitioner actually reviewed the work of others or otherwise served as a judge of others' work. Without additional documentary evidence — for example, proof that the applicant scored or rendered decisions when evaluating individuals — the evidence concerning this role is insufficient."
Jury too large
Eighty-four pages of experts on the contest website. The officer reasonably asks: how are you different from the rest? Descriptions like “best” or “leading” don’t work — specific qualifications are needed:
"The letter from [recommendation letter author] and pages from the [competition] website confirm the beneficiary's participation as a judge, but also do not establish the criteria of this participation as a judge. USCIS notes that the [competition website] page yields 84 pages of 'experts and jury' for the competition. As such, USCIS cannot assess the specific contribution of the beneficiary to this large pool of participants without additional information and documentation. Furthermore, these participants are described as 'the best representatives of the IT industry... leading specialists... [and] external experts - professionals in their field.' This apparently indicates that a wide range of qualifications and specialties is admitted to participate in the project."
Translation: "The letter from [recommendation letter author] and pages from the [competition] website confirm the beneficiary’s participation as a judge, but do not establish the criteria for that participation. USCIS notes the [competition website] page returns 84 pages of 'experts and jury' for the competition. USCIS therefore cannot assess the beneficiary’s specific contribution to this large pool of participants without additional information and documentation. Moreover, these participants are described as 'the best representatives of the IT industry... leading specialists... [and] external experts - professionals in their field.' This suggests a wide range of qualifications and specialties are admitted to participate."
Globee Awards: why USCIS distrusts them
USCIS knows about “pay-to-play” awards. If you applied to be a judge yourself (rather than being invited), that raises big doubts. Globee, Innovation Time Awards and similar are in the risk zone:
"USCIS is familiar with the Globee awards. Commonly USCIS finds awards, such as the provided Globee, require costs to apply either for initial application or for award documentation. Further, the judging indicates you're not invited but that you self-apply. Additionally, USCIS finds these awards, whose credibility is in question, will generate awards for multiple fields. Additionally, as most of these awards are done online, USCIS finds award winners and judges can create false documentation to either gain an award, or to become a judge. This combined with the absence of major media covering these awards that claim to be top awards in the field."
Translation: "USCIS is familiar with the Globee awards. USCIS often finds that such awards require payment to apply either for the initial application or for award documentation. Further, the judging suggests you were not invited but self-applied. USCIS also finds these awards — whose credibility is questionable — issue awards across multiple fields. Also, since many of these awards are conducted online, USCIS finds winners and judges could fabricate documentation to obtain an award or to become a judge. This, combined with lack of coverage in major media for awards that claim to be top in the field."
Teaching and mentorship are NOT judging
If you are a teacher and grade student work — that’s your job, not “judging.” If you are a manager evaluating subordinates — same. You need a formal appointment as a judge outside your normal duties:
"USCIS does not consider the occupation of teaching or training others to be analogous to the formal designation as a 'judge' of the work of others. In an occupation where judging the work of others is an inherent duty of the occupation (such as being coach, instructor, manager, professor, or auditor), simply performing one's job-related duties demonstrates competency, but is not evidence that your 'achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.'"
Translation: "USCIS does not consider teaching or training others analogous to formal designation as a 'judge' of others' work. In occupations where judging the work of others is inherent (coach, instructor, manager, professor, auditor), performing job duties shows competency but is not evidence that your 'achievements have been recognized in the field.'"
“Sustained” — you need history, not only 2024
A criterion was accepted (plain language met), but the petition was denied at Final Merits. Judging only in the petition year does not show “sustained” recognition. You need a history: judging over multiple years:
"The record shows that the petitioner served as a jury member for the Green Property Awards 2024. The record also shows that the petitioner served as a jury member for the Design of the Future competition in 2024. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'sustain' as 'to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time.' The record is primarily limited to a short period of time before the petitioner filed the Form I-140 in 2024. Although the record establishes that the Petitioner has participated as a judge, the record establishes that the petitioner did so exclusively in 2024, shortly before he filed the Form I-140."
Translation: "Records show the petitioner served as a jury member for the Green Property Awards 2024 and for the Design of the Future competition in 2024. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'sustain' as 'to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time.' The record is mainly limited to a short period before the petitioner filed Form I-140 in 2024. Although the record establishes the petitioner participated as a judge, it shows they did so exclusively in 2024, shortly before filing Form I-140."
Peer review for journals: need impact factor
If you reviewed articles for a journal — it’s not enough to simply say “I’m a reviewer.” USCIS wants to see that the journal is legitimate: Scopus indexing, impact factor, DOAJ listing. Predatory journals will not be accepted:
"USCIS is aware of all manner of journals that lack credibility in the fields they claim to represent. To overcome the doubt cast you may submit objective documentation which supports: The journal's impact factor from reputable sources: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, Elsevier Scopus CiteScore. Publisher's memberships with accrediting bodies: the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). The publishing listing in Ulrichs. Listing in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)."
Translation: "USCIS is aware of many journals that lack credibility in their claimed fields. To overcome doubts you may submit objective documentation supporting: the journal’s impact factor from reputable sources (Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, Elsevier Scopus CiteScore); publisher’s memberships with accrediting bodies (Committee on Publication Ethics — COPE, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association — OASPA); listing in Ulrichs; listing in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)."
Evaluating students vs professionals
USCIS explicitly states: the level of those you judged matters. A hackathon with students weighs less than a professional award. Dissertation committees are good because you evaluate future PhDs:
"The judgement of students is not indicative of judging others in the field (i.e.: established Marketing Managers in the field of business). For example, judging a national contest of professionals is of far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices."
Translation: "Judging students is not indicative of judging professionals in the field (e.g., established marketing managers). For example, judging a national contest of professionals has far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices."
Self-made documents: red flag
Don’t assemble evidence into a Word/PDF with pasted snippets. Each document should come from the organization directly. Screenshots — include full URL. Emails — full headers and body, not excerpts:
"Digital, self-made copies of documentation that include altered material or information pasted (text, pictures, etc.) into your own self-created document will not be given probative value. With respect to documents from the Internet, you must submit webpage screen shots (including the URL address and page number on each page) as they would appear on the original source's website. USCIS will not credit emails or partial screenshots pasted into self-made files; submit original judging confirmations and evidence of completed reviews from the issuing organizations."
Translation: "Digital, self-made copies of documents that include altered material or pasted information (text, pictures, etc.) into a self-created document will not be given probative value. For documents from the Internet, you must submit webpage screenshots (including the URL and page number on each page) as they appear on the original source website. USCIS will not credit emails or partial screenshots pasted into self-made files; submit original judging confirmations and evidence of completed reviews from the issuing organizations."
Documents from the organization do not prove its credibility
An officer will not take documents “from the organization itself” at face value — independent sources confirming the reputation of the contest or journal are needed. Photos without captions, brief handwritten ratings, info from the organization’s site — all can be questioned:
"The submitted evidence includes documentation such as pictures that lack attribution, documentation from the organizations themselves and their affiliated websites, emails, handwritten judging evaluations with very brief recordings. Please note, an organization's self-generated documentation cannot be relied upon to establish credibility of the organization in question. USCIS is aware of all manner of organizations that lack credibility in their claimed fields. Objective documentation is required to verify the credibility for the listed organizations."
Translation: "The submitted evidence includes pictures lacking attribution, documents from the organizations themselves and their affiliated websites, emails, handwritten judging evaluations with very brief notes. Please note: an organization’s self-generated documentation cannot be relied on to establish its credibility. USCIS is aware of many organizations that lack credibility in their claimed fields. Objective documentation is required to verify credibility of listed organizations."
No translation = no evidence
Every document in Russian (Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc.) must have a separate certified English translation. The translator’s certification must specify exactly which document was translated. A single “general” certification for everything is not accepted:
"Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The submission of a single translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements."
Translation: "Any foreign-language document submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full English translation certified by the translator as complete and accurate, and by the translator’s certification of competence to translate from the foreign language into English. Submission of a single translation certification that does not specifically identify the document(s) it accompanies does not meet the requirements."
Want us to check your case?
Not sure whether you have enough evidence for the judging criterion? Message on Telegram — we’ll review your specific case.
What works: examples of approvals
Not only mistakes — here’s what USCIS accepts. These patterns come from RFEs where the officer accepted the criterion.
IEEE Senior Membership Review Panel
What worked: (1) invitation, (2) confirmation of registration, (3) proof of real reviewing, (4) thank-you letter. Four documents together:
"The record includes information that the self-petitioner was asked to be on the IEEE Senior Membership Review Panel in Toronto in 2024. The record also shows that the self-petitioner accepted the invitation, his registration was confirmed, and he reviewed the work of others. There is also a Thank You letter from IEEE thanking the self-petitioner for his participation in the event. The evidence shows that the self-petitioner meets the plain language requirements of this criterion."
Translation: "Records include information that the self-petitioner was asked to join the IEEE Senior Membership Review Panel in Toronto in 2024. Records also show the self-petitioner accepted the invitation, registration was confirmed, and he reviewed others’ work. There is a thank-you letter from IEEE thanking him for his participation. The evidence shows the self-petitioner meets the plain language requirements of this criterion."
Peer review for journals + reviews
Minimum for peer review: (1) the actual articles with your reviews, (2) a letter from the journal confirming your role. Not just “I am a reviewer” — concrete articles and your reviews:
"The petitioner provided three articles that she reviewed for different journals and letter confirming her position as a reviewer. This is sufficient to meet the criterion."
Translation: "The petitioner provided three articles she reviewed for different journals and a letter confirming her reviewer position. This is sufficient to meet the criterion."
PhD dissertation defenses + IEEE reviews
A combination works well: dissertation committees + peer review. Both show you were invited to evaluate high-level work:
"In support of this criterion, you submitted evidence of PhD dissertation defenses and five IEEE reviews. USCIS has reviewed the evidence submitted in support of this classification and has determined that you have established eligibility under this regulatory criterion."
Translation: "In support of this criterion you submitted evidence of PhD dissertation defenses and five IEEE reviews. USCIS reviewed the evidence and determined you established eligibility under this regulatory criterion."
Mix: local award + hackathons + peer review + IEEE
A Senior QA Engineer filed a combination: regional award, hackathons, peer review for a professional bulletin, IEEE application evaluations. Not top-tier international conferences — but the criterion was accepted:
"The petitioner submitted: Armenia Digital Awards 2025; Rapid Rebuild Challenge Hackathon 2025; 2024 Hackathon Raptors Bug Hunters Challenge; Three peer reviews for Professional Bulletin; IEEE evaluations for promotion to senior membership. The plain language of this criterion has been met."
Translation: "The petitioner submitted: Armenia Digital Awards 2025; Rapid Rebuild Challenge Hackathon 2025; 2024 Hackathon Raptors Bug Hunters Challenge; three peer reviews for Professional Bulletin; IEEE evaluations for promotion to senior membership. The plain language of this criterion has been met."
Conclusion
Top international awards are not strictly necessary. A mix works: local/regional contests + hackathons + peer review for journals + IEEE. The main things: (1) everything must be in your field, (2) proof of actual participation, (3) multiple sources reinforcing each other.
Full document set for a competition jury
Complete set: invitation + minutes + confirmation of participation + event description + regulations. Five documents that together leave no open questions:
"The petitioner provided the following evidence: A judging invitation, Minutes from your Jury or Judging meeting, A letter from Akylbek Doszhanov stating you participated as a judge, Competition details, Competition regulations. As such, the submitted evidence meets this criterion."
Translation: "The petitioner provided: a judging invitation, minutes from your jury or judging meeting, a letter from Akylbek Doszhanov stating you participated as a judge, competition details, competition regulations. Thus, the submitted evidence meets this criterion."
Sports judging with certification
For sports: judge certification + competition calendar + regulations + evidence from specific tournaments + photos. Shows a system: you are a certified judge who regularly officiates:
"You have provided the following documents: Calendar of competitions WRPF; Regulations on the Attestation of Judges; Evidence that self-petitioner is a certified judge; Technical rules of the competition (part with judge's duties); Evidence from tournaments where self-petitioner was a judge; and photos of the competitions. The self-petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion."
Translation: "You provided: WRPF competition calendar; regulations on judge attestation; evidence the self-petitioner is a certified judge; technical competition rules (section with judges’ duties); evidence from tournaments where the self-petitioner judged; and photos. The self-petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion."
Pattern of successful cases
In all approved cases there is a common pattern: (1) invitation/appointment, (2) confirmation of actual participation, (3) details of the event/journal, (4) a thank-you or recognition afterward. Four elements together.
Curating an exhibition is not the same as judging
A frequent mistake among designers and artists: claim curating as judging. USCIS sees the difference:
"The petitioner provided various printouts about the event where she was invited as a curator and judge. One printout shows the petitioner's name as curator. However, this is insufficient to meet the requirements for being a judge and judge the work of others... the definition indicates that the petitioner did not judge the work of other professionals as an 'exhibition curator', but she selected the work of others to be presented at the exhibition created."
Translation: "The petitioner provided printouts about an event where she was invited as a curator and judge. One printout shows her name as curator. However, this is insufficient to meet the judge requirement — the definition indicates the petitioner did not judge the work of other professionals as an 'exhibition curator'; she selected works to be presented at the exhibition she created."
In plain terms
A curator SELECTS what to show. A judge EVALUATES quality. If you picked works for an exhibition — that’s curating. If you assigned scores and determined winners — that’s judging. Curators are sometimes listed as jury members, but USCIS will not accept curating as equivalent to judging.
Hackathon in a different field: AI is not Distributed Systems
IT specialists often judge “any technical hackathon.” But the officer checks field alignment:
"Your supporting documentation states the beneficiary's field of expertise is his ability to 'design, scale, and automate complex distributed systems'. You seek to hire the beneficiary as a 'Chief Executive Officer' at a 'Technology-Designing and Building Scalable Distributed Systems' company. For example, you submitted documentation indicating the beneficiary served as a judge for the September 2025, Build Your AI Teammate Hackathon. A search of publicly available records indicates this event is to 'Create autonomous AI Agents that integrate real-world tools, automate your day-to-day workflows and eliminate the boring, repetitive stuff in your professional or personal life.' Your evidence indicates the beneficiary served as a judge evaluating the work of individuals creating tools to 'eliminate the boring' things in your 'professional or personal life'. However, the work judged was not similar to the work completed by a 'Chief Technology Officer' at a 'Technology-Designing and Building Scalable Distributed Systems' company, the field of specialization to that for which classification is sought."
Translation: "Your documentation states the beneficiary’s expertise is 'designing, scaling, and automating complex distributed systems.' You seek to hire them as CEO at a company 'designing and building scalable distributed systems.' For example, you submitted evidence the beneficiary judged the Build Your AI Teammate Hackathon (Sept 2025). Public records show this event focuses on creating autonomous AI agents to integrate real-world tools and automate day-to-day workflows. Your evidence indicates the beneficiary judged works creating tools to 'eliminate boring' tasks. However, the judged works were not similar to the work of a CTO at a distributed systems company — the specialization sought."
Officer does independent checks
Note: the officer went to the hackathon website and read the description. AI, DevOps, Cybersecurity, Distributed Systems — USCIS treats these as DIFFERENT fields. Before filing, check: does the hackathon/contest description match your petition’s stated specialization? Better one judging instance in the EXACT field than five in "adjacent IT" fields.
Were you invited or did you ask to be a judge?
Officers check HOW you became a judge. Self-solicited (you applied) — red flag:
Why it matters
USCIS distinguishes "you were invited because you are an expert" from "you applied to be a judge on the website." The first indicates recognition of expertise. The second is your initiative. If you filled out a "want to be a judge" form on Globee, DevPost, or LinkedIn — that is NOT the same as organizers selecting and inviting you because of your expertise.
"USCIS is unsure whether he applied to be a judge for these events or whether he was selected by national or international experts because of his eminent expertise. Although the evidence shows that the petitioner acted as a judge or reviewer at these events, the evidence does not establish that this was because he was among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor."
Translation: "USCIS is unsure whether he applied to be a judge or was selected by national/international experts for his eminent expertise. Although evidence shows the petitioner acted as a judge/reviewer at these events, it does not establish this was because he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field."
Worse — when you’re a member of the organization that “invites” you:
"The emails indicate that she was the organizer of the event as a member of BAPC. Here, the record shows that she was in charge of an event sponsored and organized by BAPC, an association in which the petitioner is a member. The criterion intention is to establish that the petitioner is a recognized individual in the field of expertise and his or her selection has been decided based on his or her level of expertise in the field."
Translation: "Emails show she organized the event as a BAPC member. Records show she was responsible for an event sponsored and organized by BAPC — an association the petitioner is a member of. The criterion intends to establish the petitioner is a recognized individual in the field and that selection was based on their level of expertise."
How to properly document the invitation
You should show: (1) invitation from an EXTERNAL organization, not from one where you are a member/employee; (2) explanation WHY you were chosen (not just "relevant experience" but specific achievements); (3) description of the judge selection process. If you applied via Globee-type sites — that is not the same as organizers finding and inviting you.
Officers who issue boilerplate denials without specifics
Sometimes officers issue a template response: list what you submitted, then a generic list of “what to submit” — even though you already submitted it. They don’t explain what exactly is wrong:
"The petitioner submitted the following evidence: Petitioner statement; Certificate; Correspondences from official representatives; Review notes; Information about the competition; Official website; Published materials; and Their corresponding English translations. To assist in determining that the beneficiary actually participated in the judging of the work of others, the petitioner may submit: Advertisements used for the event; Photographs of the event; Program event; Program or flyers of the event listing him as a judge; Notes of his judging activities; Judge certificates; Letters from an official representative of the event..."
Translation: "The petitioner submitted: petitioner statement; certificate; correspondences from official representatives; review notes; competition information; official website; published materials; and English translations. To help determine that the beneficiary actually participated in judging others’ work, the petitioner may submit: event advertisements; photos; event program; program/flyers listing them as a judge; notes of judging activities; judge certificates; letters from an official representative..."
What to do
If you received such a boilerplate RFE, it DOES NOT mean your case is weak. Sometimes an officer uses standard text and doesn’t point to specific document flaws. In your RFE response clearly state: "The original petition included [documents X, Y, Z] in exhibit [numbers]. The requested evidence is already in the record. For clarity we reattach and supplement..." Don’t apologize — just show what was already filed.
Non-obvious points
Someone reviewed 50+ articles for Q1 journals (Dentistry Journal, IJERPH) via MDPI. Not accepted. The officer demanded proof that the editorial office actually invited them. Conclusion: it’s not enough to show reviews — you need a letter from the editor: "we selected you for your expertise."
Youth competitions and student forums — the officer explicitly writes: "does not equate to judging work of others in the field." Logic: students are not yet "others in the field." You should judge peers.
A well-known award was not accepted — the officer asked: "were those students or established professionals?" For the officer the important fact is not the award name but who you judged. Add participant credentials.
In one RFE they quoted Merriam-Webster’s definition of "hackathon." Don’t assume officers are uninformed. They Google, read, and check every word.
Judging in Final Merits: accepted but petition denied
The judging criterion can be accepted under the plain language — yet the petition can still be denied. How is that possible? Because USCIS uses a two-step evaluation.
What is Final Merits Determination
After the officer checks criteria under the plain language (literal match to the regulation), they move to the second stage: Final Merits Determination. Here the officer looks at the whole picture and assesses whether the entire evidence package shows you are "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field". More on this stage: Final Merits Determination.
In practice this means: an officer can write “the plain language of this criterion has been met” (the criterion is met) — and then add “however, for the analysis in part two…” and deny the petition. Real quotes from decisions follow.
“Merely meets the plain language” — technical compliance without weight
The most common phrasing in denials. The officer recognizes the criterion is formally met — but that’s not enough to prove extraordinary ability:
"The petitioner provided evidence of on-line material and emails to confirm that she has participated in Hackathon mentorship activities, a judge for The 2024 Armenia Digital Awards, and what appears to be approximately seven instances of peer-reviewership conducted in 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024. It is noted that mentorship activities would not be considered judging the work of others. The petitioner did not demonstrate how these recent instances of participation as a judge, distinguished her from within her field, reflecting sustained national or international acclaim. Thus, the submitted evidence merely meets the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)."
Translation: "The petitioner provided online material and emails confirming participation in hackathon mentorship activities, judging the 2024 Armenia Digital Awards, and approximately seven peer-review instances in 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Note mentorship is not considered judging others’ work. The petitioner did not show how these recent judging instances distinguished her within her field to reflect sustained national or international acclaim. Thus, the evidence merely meets the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)."
What this means for you
"Merely meets" is fine for judging. Judging is usually used to satisfy the plain language (first stage) — and it does. No one in their right mind proves "top of the field" solely through hackathons and a couple of reviews at Final Merits. FMD is passed by real achievements: publications, industry impact, high salary, expert recognition. Judging is one of 3+ criteria, not the main argument.
Judging only in the petition year — “not sustained”
If all your judging occurred in 2024-2025 (right before filing), the officer sees a pattern of “preparing the petition,” not a real career:
"The beneficiary served as a judge in 2024 and 2025. Participating in the judging of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification alone, regardless of the circumstances, should satisfy the regulatory criteria in part one. However, for the analysis in part two, the beneficiary's participation is evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence does not show that the beneficiary served as an expert judge, panelist, or reviewer, for the selection of recognized memberships in the beneficiary's same or allied field. As the beneficiary's service as a jury member was in 2024 and 2025, the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim."
Translation: "The beneficiary judged in 2024 and 2025. Participating in judging others’ work in the same or allied field alone satisfies the regulatory criteria in part one. However, for part two, participation is evaluated to see whether it indicates the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of the field and enjoys sustained national/international acclaim. The evidence does not show the beneficiary served as an expert judge, panelist, or reviewer for selection into recognized memberships in the same or allied field. Since jury service was only in 2024-2025, the evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim."
Peer review — a “routine process” for many
Officers know peer review is standard in academia. A few reviews do not distinguish you from thousands of other reviewers:
"The record shows that you served as a judge in your field. You provided evidence of several reviews, but the evidence does not establish that your participation in the widespread peer-review process (a routine process in the field relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other designers or reflects national or international recognition. Such recognition is more commonly associated with substantial numbers of peer research reviewed, a consistent track record of reviews, evidence of journals/conferences consistently seeking your expert review, and service on an editorial board of a prestigious journal or general chair of a professional conference."
Translation: "Records show you served as a judge in your field. You provided several reviews, but the evidence does not establish your participation in the widespread peer-review process (a routine process involving many scientists) exceeds that of other designers or reflects national or international recognition. Such recognition more often relates to a large number of peer reviews, a consistent track record over years, evidence that journals/conferences consistently seek your expert review, service on editorial boards of prestigious journals, or serving as general chair of a professional conference."
What is needed to pass Final Merits
The officer explicitly says they look for: (1) a large number of reviews, (2) a consistent history of reviewing over several years, (3) journals/conferences regularly soliciting your expertise, (4) editorial board membership or general chair roles. If you have 5–10 reviews in one year, that may not be enough.
Four instances of judging — “does not show a career”
Concrete number: four judging instances are insufficient to demonstrate a “career of acclaimed work”:
"The record does not include evidence that the events and publication for which the petitioner served as a judge or reviewer were significant or otherwise so noteworthy to place her amongst those at the top of her field. Furthermore, the petitioner did not demonstrate that four instances of judging contribute to a finding of a 'career of acclaimed work in the field' as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No.101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990)."
Translation: "Records do not include evidence that the events and publications where the petitioner served as judge/reviewer were significant or noteworthy enough to place her among those at the top of her field. Further, the petitioner did not show that four instances of judging contribute to a finding of a 'career of acclaimed work in the field' as contemplated by Congress."
Judging via acquaintances — “not independent”
If you were invited to judge through personal connections (colleagues, ex-employers), the officer notes this. Independence of the judging is important:
"The beneficiary has satisfied the 'Judge of the work of others' criterion via judging work in various capacities such as judging business contests, performing 'Bootcamp' audits, hiring evaluations, etc. However, it is noted that much of the judging work identified appears to have resulted from organizations or entities, or individuals associated with those organizations or entities, from which the beneficiary was already a member or employee or closely affiliated. While professional or industry knowledge or expertise may be required for the described review work, knowledge or expertise itself, or the participation as one of numerous judges for various competitions or events, often with organizations the beneficiary was already associated with in some way, is not indicative of the beneficiary having separated himself from almost all others and having risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."
Translation: "The beneficiary satisfied the 'judge of the work of others' criterion by judging business contests, performing Bootcamp audits, hiring evaluations, etc. However, much of the judging work appears to have come from organizations or individuals the beneficiary was already affiliated with as a member, employee, or close associate. While professional expertise may be required for such review work, expertise itself—or participating as one of many judges in events often organized by groups the beneficiary was already associated with—does not indicate the beneficiary separated themselves from nearly all others to rise to the very top of the field."
Globee Awards — officers know the system
Judging for Globee and similar awards, where you apply to be a judge, does not demonstrate recognition:
"The record also includes evidence that the self-petitioner acted as a judge for the 2024 Globee Awards for Technology. However, a review of the Globee Awards website does not indicate that judges are nationally or internationally recognized experts in their field, or that judges are invited because of their expertise in their field. Instead, it appears that any individual may apply to be considered as a judge. Although the self-petitioner acted as a judge for this award, he does not establish that doing so places him among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor."
Translation: "Records include evidence the self-petitioner acted as a judge for the 2024 Globee Awards for Technology. However, review of the Globee website does not indicate judges are nationally/internationally recognized experts or invited due to expertise. Instead, it appears individuals may apply to be judges. Although the self-petitioner judged for this award, this does not establish it places him among the small percentage at the very top of the field."
Judging students — “inherent to academia”
Evaluating student works is inherent to academia and performed by countless educators worldwide. This limited judging activity does not show you distinguished yourself sufficiently to claim sustained national or international acclaim:
"The beneficiary has also satisfied the 'judge of the work of others criterion' via reviewing final graduation projects for Bachelor's degree or graduate-level competitions. The review and judging work of the work of students is inherent to academia and performed by an innumerable number of educators and professionals across the globe. This limited judging activity does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent that her judging acumen is extensive and that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field."
Translation: "The beneficiary also satisfied the 'judge of the work of others' criterion by reviewing final graduation projects for bachelor’s or graduate competitions. Reviewing and judging student work is inherent to academia and performed by innumerable educators and professionals globally. This limited judging does not show the beneficiary distinguished herself to the extent her judging acumen is extensive or that she achieved sustained national/international acclaim or is among the small percentage at the very top of her field."
Two judging instances over 15 years — “not sustained”
Even if you judged twice over a long career (15+ years), the officer may consider that insufficient:
"Performing as a judge on two occasions during a 15 year career in [field], and as an editor for one academic article, fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. This evidence is not indicative of the beneficiary being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."
Translation: "Serving as a judge twice during a 15-year career in [field], and editing one academic article, fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. This evidence does not indicate the beneficiary is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field."
Key insight
The officer looks at the RATIO: 2 judging instances / 15 years ≈ 0.13 times per year. That is not "sustained." If you have 15+ years of experience, you need to show regular judging throughout your career, not a couple of isolated instances.
One jury membership — “not indicative”
Membership on a jury once, even for a prestigious competition, is insufficient for Final Merits (second stage):
"The evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within that small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor by serving as a jury member for one competition."
Translation: "Evidence does not establish the beneficiary distinguished herself to the extent she achieved sustained national or international acclaim or is among the small percentage at the very top of her field by serving as a jury member for one competition."
Even if you were a director or CEO and were invited once — that’s not enough. You need a history of judging.
Why then include this section?
Quotes above show cases where attorneys tried to "sell" judging as evidence for Final Merits. That’s what happens when they don’t build a client’s case holistically.
Correct approach: judging closes the plain language (first stage). That’s its job — be one of 3+ criteria. Final Merits requires cumulative real achievements: cited publications, industry impact, high salary, peer recognition.
Exception: if you are a professional judge, auditor, or an editorial board member of a top journal — then judging can be part of the FMD argument. For most others, it’s a checkbox criterion.
Documents USCIS accepted
How do we know this
If a petition is approved, the beneficiary doesn’t know which criteria were credited. But in RFEs the officer details each criterion. If a criterion is credited in an RFE, we can see which documents were sufficient.
1. Invitation to the jury
On letterhead, 1–2 pages. It should include:
- Addressed to you by name, event title, date, location
- Specific reasons you were invited (qualifications, experience, publications)
- Your duties as a judge
- Evaluation format (online, in-person, criteria)
- Contact details of organizers
An email from organizers is acceptable — print and include it.
2. Event program
General event description, speakers and jury bios, session details, evaluation procedure, organizer contacts. Your name in the program as a jury member (especially with photo) significantly increases officer confidence.
3. Detailed letter from organizers
The most important document. The more detailed, the fewer questions the officer has. Recommended sections:
- General info: date, place, history, significance, number of participants and countries
- Participation confirmation: your role, field of expertise, assessment of your work by organizers
- Evaluation criteria: how works were evaluated, standards
- Participants and nominations: who submitted works, categories, results
- Jury composition: judge selection criteria, roles and duties
- Sponsors, partners, media coverage
You can cite this letter in the petition as confirmation. The more specific each section is, the stronger the document.
Frequently asked questions
A Publons account without completed reviews is insufficient. You need two concrete documents.
Is peer reviewing academic articles considered judging?
Yes, USCIS explicitly lists peer review as an example of judging. You need two documents: (1) the journal’s request for you to review and (2) proof the review was completed. Simply having a Publons or Web of Science account without proof of completed reviews is insufficient.
USCIS explicitly includes dissertation committees in the list of judging examples.
Are dissertation defenses considered judging?
Yes, if you were a member of a dissertation committee that decides whether to award the degree. USCIS explicitly lists this example. You need a document showing committee participation and defense minutes.
Eighty-four pages of experts on a contest site — real RFE case that led to an RFE.
Is a long list of experts on a contest site a problem?
Yes, real RFE case. The officer saw 84 pages of “experts and jury” and wrote: “USCIS cannot assess the beneficiary’s specific contribution to this large pool.” If a jury has hundreds of people, you must clearly show your specific role, which works you evaluated, and what decisions you made.
Backdated letters are normal practice if the organization still exists.
Can you ask organizers to issue a letter after the event?
Yes, this is normal. You can request organizers to send a confirmation on letterhead or by email. The key is specificity: what you did, when, and which works you evaluated. If the organization exists — request the letter.
USCIS explicitly flags Globee Awards and similar “pay-to-play” awards as problematic.
Is Globee Awards acceptable for the criterion?
Risky. USCIS explicitly mentions Globee in RFEs: “you weren’t invited, you applied yourself,” “payment is required,” “lack of major media coverage.” If Globee is your only evidence — that’s weak. If you have Globee plus stronger judging evidence, include it but focus on stronger items.
Judging only in the year before filing — a problem for “sustained” acclaim.
I only started judging this year — is that a problem?
For plain language (first stage) it may pass. But for Final Merits the officer assesses “sustained” acclaim. If all judging occurred in the months before filing, it looks like petition preparation rather than actual recognition. Better to have judging history across multiple years (e.g., 2022, 2023, 2024) to show a pattern.
Mentoring at hackathons is not judging even if you were called a “mentor-judge.”
I was a mentor at a hackathon — does that count?
No. USCIS explicitly states: “mentorship activities would not be considered judging the work of others.” A mentor helps teams; a judge evaluates final results. If you were a final-round judge who selected winners — that’s judging. If you only coached teams during the event — that’s mentorship, not judging.
For journals you must prove their credibility — Scopus, DOAJ, impact factor.
I reviewed for a lesser-known journal — will that be accepted?
Depends on the journal. USCIS may request proof of journal credibility: impact factor from Clarivate or Scopus CiteScore, listing in DOAJ, publisher memberships in COPE or OASPA. If the journal is not indexed anywhere — there is a risk its peer review will not be credited. Predatory journals will definitely fail.
Screenshots must be full pages — include URL and date, not snippets pasted into Word.
How to properly format website screenshots?
USCIS explicitly states: “you must submit webpage screenshots including the URL address and page number on each page as they would appear on the original source’s website.” Do not paste cropped snippets into Word/PDF. Each screenshot should be the full page with visible URL in the browser. If the page is long — include multiple numbered screenshots.
Every foreign-language document needs a separate certified translation.
Do I need a separate translation for each document?
Yes. USCIS requires a full translation and a translator’s certification that specifically identifies which document was translated. A single generic translation certification for multiple documents is not accepted. Each document must have its own certified translation.
Information in this article is based on community experience and public sources. This is not legal advice. For your specific situation consult a licensed professional.