All EB-1A criteria
Awards - Memberships - Media - Scholarly articles - Judging - Original contributions - High salary - Critical role - Final Merits
O-1 Petitioner - EB-2 NIW guide - Success stories - Document translation - Filing fees
We analyze the judging criterion for O-1 and EB-1A: what USCIS considers “participation as a judge,” which types of evidence they accept, examples from real RFEs and approvals, Final Merits decisions, and FAQ.
What the judging criterion is
This analysis focuses on the judging criterion. Other criteria are in the full guide.
The essence is simple: you must show that you were invited to evaluate other people’s work in your professional field. Not merely “sitting on a jury,” but formally participating in the assessment of others’ work.
In the regulations 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: Participation of the person, individually or as part of a panel, as a judge of others’ work in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought.
Two key points: (1) participation must be formal — you were appointed as a judge, not simply decided to evaluate someone’s work; (2) the field of judging must match the petition field.
What qualifies: peer reviewing for journals, PhD dissertation committees, juries for competitions and awards, judging sports competitions, juries for art and architecture contests — if these are within your field. In the USCIS Policy Manual they give 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 USCIS will accept and what they won’t
You should be judging professionals at your level or higher. Evaluating student work or internal company contests won’t show that you are “one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top.” USCIS explicitly states 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 acclaim at the highest level of the petitioner’s field. 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 has far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices.”
National professional contests vs novice competitions — difference in evidentiary value.
| Acceptable | Not acceptable |
|---|---|
| International hackathons | Evaluation of student work |
| Juries of professional awards | Regional novice competitions |
| Peer review for scholarly journals | Grading homework |
| National championships | Internal company contests |
| Dissertation committees | Evaluating interns |
Important
Being invited is not enough. USCIS wants to see that you actually participated in the evaluation. Invitation + proof of actual evaluation is required.
Five reasons you’ll get an RFE on judging
From our analysis of over 50 RFEs on this criterion. Got an RFE? Read how to respond correctly.
“Judge” for USCIS is a formal appointment. You need a document: an invitation letter on letterhead, an email from the organizers, or a program listing your name.
Officers want to see not just “you were invited” but why you were invited. One RFE literally demanded: “prove how and why you were chosen as a judge.” Descriptions like “top,” “leading” without specifics are insufficient. Facts are needed: education, experience, publications, licenses.
You apply as a construction management specialist but judged geotechnical projects? The officer will notice. Events must align with your claimed expertise, education, and licenses.
An invitation to the jury is not the same as participation. Needed: scoring 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 evaluating work of professionals at your level. USCIS states this explicitly.
What officers write in RFEs
Real RFE quotes we collected from case analyses. Each shows a specific officer’s concern.
Field mismatch
One petitioner filed under construction management but provided judging in geotechnics, wind power and other disparate fields. The officer demanded “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 complex calculations related to geotechnical civil engineering. Another is a full assessment of a proposed wind power plant. Several other submissions came from different fields. However, since all relate to project analysis, they do not relate to your field of construction management.”
Another case: the petitioner filed as a FINTECH specialist but the judging evidence was in AI, Cybersecurity and Business. The officer immediately flagged 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, awards lacking recognition are not considered credible or probative. Also, 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 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 [awards]. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner actually reviewed the work of others or otherwise served as a judge. Without additional documentary evidence — for example, evidence the applicant scored or made decisions when evaluating candidates — the evidence for this role is insufficient.”
Jury too large
Eighty-four pages of experts on a competition website. The officer reasonably asks: how are you different from the rest? Descriptions like “best,” “leading” don’t work — concrete 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 [author] and pages from the [competition] website confirm the beneficiary’s participation as a judge, but do not establish the criteria of that participation. USCIS notes the site yields 84 pages of ‘experts and jury.’ USCIS cannot assess the beneficiary’s specific contribution to this large pool without more information. Moreover, participants are described broadly as ‘the best representatives of the IT industry... leading specialists... external experts,’ indicating a wide range of qualifications are admitted.”
Globee Awards: why USCIS distrusts them
USCIS is aware of “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 programs are in the danger 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 Globee. USCIS commonly finds such awards require fees to apply, either for the initial application or for award documentation. Further, the judging shows you were not invited but self-applied. USCIS finds these awards, whose credibility is questionable, issue awards across many fields. Because most are online, USCIS finds winners and judges can fabricate documentation to gain awards or become judges. This, together with the lack of major media coverage for awards claiming to be top in the field, raises concern.”
Teaching and mentoring are NOT judging
If you’re a teacher grading student work — that’s your job, not judging. If you’re 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 to be analogous to the formal designation of ‘judge’ of others’ work. In occupations where judging is an inherent duty (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 a history, not just 2024
The criterion may be counted (plain language met), but the Final Merits Determination denied the petition. Judging only in the petition year does not show “sustained” recognition. You need a history: judging across several 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 Green Property Awards 2024 and Design of the Future competition 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 petitioner participated as a judge, the record shows this occurred exclusively in 2024, shortly before filing I-140.”
Peer review for journals: you need impact evidence
If you reviewed for a journal — it’s not enough to state “I’m a reviewer.” USCIS wants to see the journal is real: indexing in Scopus, impact factor, DOAJ listing. Predatory journals will not be counted:
“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. To overcome doubt you may submit objective documentation supporting: journal impact factor from reputable sources (Clarivate JCR, Elsevier Scopus CiteScore); publisher memberships in accrediting bodies (COPE, OASPA); listing in Ulrichs; listing in DOAJ.”
Student vs professional evaluation
USCIS explicitly states: the level of those you judged matters. A student hackathon carries less weight than a professional award. Dissertation committees are strong 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 others in the field (for example, established Marketing Managers). Judging a national contest of professionals has far greater probative value than judging a competition for novices.”
Self-made documents: red flag
Don’t compile evidence into a single Word/PDF with cut-and-paste content. Each document should come from the organization directly. Screenshots must include full URL. Emails must be complete, 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: “Digitally self-made copies of documents that include altered material or information pasted into your own document will not be given probative value. For internet documents, submit webpage screenshots including the URL and page number as they appear on the 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.”
Organization’s documents don’t prove its credibility
Officers won’t rely solely on documents from the organization itself — independent sources confirming the reputation of the contest or journal are needed. Photos without captions, brief handwritten scores, and organization-only website info are all 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: “Submitted evidence includes pictures lacking attribution, documents from the organizations themselves and their websites, emails, handwritten judging evaluations with very brief notes. Note: an organization’s self-generated documentation cannot be relied on to establish that organization’s credibility. USCIS is aware of many organizations lacking authority. Objective documentation is required to verify credibility.”
No translation = no evidence
Each document in Russian (Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc.) needs a separate certified English translation. The translator’s certification must specify exactly which document was translated. A single generic certificate for everything will not be 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 a certification that the translator is competent. A single translation certification that does not specifically identify which document(s) it accompanies does not meet the requirements.”
Want us to review your case?
Not sure if you have enough evidence for the judging criterion? Message us on Telegram — we’ll analyze your specific case.
What works: examples of approvals
Not only mistakes — here’s what USCIS accepts. Patterns from RFEs where the officer counted the criterion.
IEEE Senior Membership Review Panel
What worked: (1) invitation, (2) registration confirmation, (3) evidence of actual reviews, (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 show he accepted, his registration was confirmed, and he reviewed others’ work. There is a Thank You letter from IEEE. The evidence shows the self-petitioner meets the plain language requirements of this criterion.”
Peer review for journals + reviewer reports
Minimum for peer review: (1) the articles with your review reports, (2) a letter from the journal confirming your reviewer role. Not just “I’m a reviewer” — concrete articles and your review work:
“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 role. This is sufficient to meet the criterion.”
PhD defenses + IEEE reviews
A combination works well: dissertation committees + peer review. Both types show you are invited to assess 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: “You submitted evidence of PhD dissertation defenses and five IEEE reviews. USCIS reviewed the evidence and determined you have established eligibility under this criterion.”
Mix: local award + hackathons + peer review + IEEE
A Senior QA Engineer filed a mix: regional award, hackathons, peer review for a professional bulletin, IEEE evaluations for senior membership. Not top international conferences — but the criterion was counted:
“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 senior membership. The plain language of this criterion has been met.”
Conclusion
You don’t need only top international awards. A mix works: local/regional contests + hackathons + peer review for journals + IEEE. The main points: (1) everything is in your field, (2) proof of real participation exists, (3) multiple sources reinforce each other.
Full document set for judging at a competition
A complete set: invitation + minutes + participation confirmation + contest description + rules. Five documents together leave no 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: judging invitation, minutes from the jury meeting, a letter from Akylbek Doszhanov confirming participation as a judge, competition details, competition regulations. The submitted evidence meets this criterion.”
Sports judging with certification
For sports: judge certification + competition calendar + rules + evidence from specific tournaments + photos. Shows a system: you’re 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 calendar of competitions; regulations on judge attestation; evidence you are a certified judge; technical rules (section on judge duties); evidence from tournaments where you judged; and photos. The self-petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.”
Pattern of successful cases
In all approvals there is a common pattern: (1) invitation/appointment, (2) proof of actual participation, (3) event/journal details, (4) a thank-you or recognition after. Four elements together.
Curating an exhibition is not the same as judging
A common mistake by designers and artists is presenting curatorship 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 materials about an event where she was invited as curator and judge. One printout shows her name as curator. However, this is insufficient to meet judge requirements: the petitioner did not judge professionals’ work as an ‘exhibition curator,’ she selected works to present at the exhibition.”
In plain words
A curator SELECTS what to show. A judge EVALUATES quality. If you selected works for an exhibition — that’s curatorship. If you scored and determined winners — that’s judging. Curators are often listed as jury members, but USCIS will not count curatorship alone as judging.
Hackathon in a different area: AI is not Distributed Systems
IT professionals 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 ‘design, scale, and automate complex distributed systems.’ You seek to hire him as CEO at a company ‘Designing and Building Scalable Distributed Systems.’ For example, you submitted documentation he judged the Build Your AI Teammate Hackathon (Sept 2025). Public records show the event focuses on creating autonomous AI agents to automate everyday workflows. Your evidence indicates he judged tools to automate daily tasks — not work similar to that of a CTO at a distributed systems company, the specialization for which classification is sought.”
Officer checks themselves
Note: the officer went to the hackathon site and read the description. AI, DevOps, Cybersecurity, Distributed Systems — USCIS treats these as DISTINCT areas. Before filing, check: does the hackathon/contest description match your petition field? One precise judging instance in your exact field is better than five in “related IT” fields.
Were you invited or did you volunteer?
Officers check HOW you became a judge. Self-solicited roles are a red flag:
Why this matters
USCIS distinguishes “you were invited because you are an expert” from “you applied to be a judge.” The first is recognition of expertise. The second is your initiative. If you filled a “become a judge” form on Globee, DevPost, or LinkedIn — that is NOT the same as organizers finding and inviting you.
“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 due to eminent expertise. Although the evidence shows he acted as a judge or reviewer, it does not establish this was because he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.”
Worse if you are a member of the organization that “invited” 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 indicate she was the organizer as a BAPC member. Records show she ran an event sponsored and organized by BAPC, an association of which the petitioner is a member. The criterion intends to establish that the petitioner is a recognized individual and selection was based on expertise.”
How to document an invitation properly
Show: (1) invitation from an EXTERNAL organization (not where you’re a member/employee); (2) explanation WHY you were selected (not just “relevant experience” but specific achievements); (3) description of the judge selection process. If you applied via Globee — that is not the same as being invited.
Officers who use boilerplate refusals without specifics
Sometimes officers issue a template response: list what you submitted, then a generic list of “what you may submit” — even if you already submitted those things. No specific explanation:
“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; correspondence from officials; review notes; competition info; official website; published materials; and English translations. To determine actual participation, the petitioner may submit: event advertisements; photos; program; flyers listing him as judge; notes of judging activity; judge certificates; letters from an official representative...”
What to do
If you get a boilerplate RFE — this DOES NOT mean your case is weak. Sometimes officers use standard text and don’t indicate specific document deficiencies. In your RFE response, clearly state: “The original petition already 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 the documents.
Less obvious points
A person reviewed 50+ articles for Q1 journals (Dentistry Journal, IJERPH) via MDPI. It was not counted. The officer demanded proof the editorial office invited the reviewer. Conclusion: it’s not enough to show reviews; you need a letter from the editor saying “we selected you for your expertise.”
Youth competitions and student forums — the officer explicitly states these “do not equate to judging work of others in the field.” Students are not yet “others in the field.” You must judge peers/professionals.
A known award was not counted — the officer asked: “were those students or established professionals?” The name of the award matters less than who you judged. Include participants’ credentials.
In one RFE they quoted Merriam-Webster’s definition of “hackathon.” Don’t assume officers don’t research. They Google and verify each term.
Judging in Final Merits: counted but petition denied
The judging criterion can be counted under plain language — yet the petition is still denied. Why? USCIS uses a two-step evaluation.
What is Final Merits Determination
After the officer checks plain language compliance (step one), they proceed to the second step: Final Merits Determination. Here they look at the overall picture and decide whether the entire evidentiary record shows you are “one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.” More about this stage: Final Merits Determination.
In practice, an officer can write “the plain language of this criterion has been met” and then add “however, for the analysis in part two…” and deny. Real quotes below.
“Merely meets the plain language” — technical compliance without weight
This phrasing is common in denials. The officer acknowledges the criterion was technically satisfied — but that alone is insufficient 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 materials and emails confirming participation in hackathon mentorship, judging The 2024 Armenia Digital Awards, and roughly seven instances of peer review in 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Note mentorship is not judging. The petitioner did not show how these recent judging instances distinguish her within her field or 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 the judging criterion. Judging is intended to satisfy plain language (step one) — and it does. No one proves “top of the field” solely via hackathons and a few reviews. Final Merits is decided by real achievements: publications, industry impact, high salary. Judging is typically one of 3+ supporting criteria, not the primary argument.
Judging only in the filing year — “not sustained”
If all your judging occurred in 2024–2025 (shortly before filing), the officer may view this as “preparing the petition,” not a career pattern:
“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 served as a judge in 2024 and 2025. Judging alone should satisfy the regulatory criterion in step one. However, in step two, participation is evaluated to see if it indicates the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top and enjoys sustained national/international acclaim. The evidence does not show the beneficiary served as an expert judge for recognized memberships in the same or allied field. Since service was in 2024–2025, the evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim.”
Peer review — a routine process for many
Officers know peer review is routine. A few reviews won’t 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. You provided several reviews, but evidence does not show your participation in the widespread peer-review process exceeds that of others or reflects national/international recognition. Such recognition is usually associated with: a large number of reviews, consistent reviewing over years, evidence that journals/conferences consistently seek your reviews, editorial board membership of a prestigious journal, or serving as general chair of a professional conference.”
What helps for Final Merits
The officer lists what works: (1) many reviews, (2) consistent review history over years, (3) journals/conferences actively soliciting your reviews, (4) editorial board membership or general chair role. If you have 5–10 reviews in one year, that may not be enough.
Four judging instances — “does not show a career”
A concrete number: four judging instances may be insufficient to establish 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 show the events/publications where the petitioner judged were significant enough to place her among the top of her field. Further, four judging instances do not demonstrate a ‘career of acclaimed work’ as contemplated by Congress.”
Judging via acquaintances — “not independent”
If you were invited through personal connections (colleagues, former employers), the officer notes that independence matters. Being one of many judges in organizations you’re affiliated with doesn’t show separation from the rest:
“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 judging criterion via judging business contests, Bootcamp audits, hiring evaluations, etc. However, much of the judging appears to result from organizations with which the beneficiary was already a member, employee, or closely affiliated. While expertise may be required, expertise alone, or participation as one of many judges often within organizations the beneficiary is associated with, does not indicate the beneficiary has separated from nearly all others and risen to the top of the field.”
Globee Awards — officers know the system
Judging at 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 judged the 2024 Globee Awards for Technology. However, the Globee website does not indicate judges are nationally/internationally recognized experts or invited for expertise. It appears anyone can apply to be a judge. Although he judged for this award, he does not show this places him among the small percentage at the top of the field.”
Judging students — inherent to academia
Evaluating student work is inherent to academic jobs and performed by countless educators worldwide. This limited activity does not show you have achieved 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 satisfied the judge criterion via reviewing final graduation projects or graduate competitions. Reviewing and judging student work is inherent to academia and performed by countless educators worldwide. This limited judging activity does not demonstrate the beneficiary has distinguished herself to the extent of achieving sustained national/international acclaim or being among the small percentage at the top of her field.”
Two judging instances over 15 years — “not sustained”
Even if you judged twice over a 15-year career, the officer may find this 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 in a 15-year career and editing one academic article fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. This evidence is not indicative of the beneficiary being among the small percentage at the top of the field.”
Key insight
The officer looks at RATIOS: 2 judging instances / 15 years ≈ 0.13 times per year. That is not “sustained.” If you have 15+ years of experience, show regular judging across your career, not a couple of recent instances.
Single jury membership — “not indicative”
One jury membership, even for a prestigious contest, is insufficient for Final Merits:
“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: “The evidence does not establish that serving as a jury member for one competition distinguishes the beneficiary to the extent of achieving sustained national or international acclaim or being among the small percentage at the very top of her field.”
Even if you were a director or CEO and invited once to be a jury member — it’s not enough. You need a history of judging.
Why include this section then?
The quotes above are cases where attorneys tried to “sell” judging as the main Final Merits evidence. That’s often done when they don’t build stronger elements for the client.
Proper approach: judging closes the plain language (first step). It’s one of multiple criteria. Final Merits succeed through a combination of tangible achievements: cited publications, industry impact, high salary, peer recognition.
Exception: if you are a professional judge, auditor, or a member of an editorial board of a top journal, judging can be part of the Final Merits argument. For most others, it’s just a checkbox.
Documents USCIS accepted
How we know this
If a petition is approved, the beneficiary usually doesn’t know which criteria were credited. But in RFEs officers explain each criterion. When a criterion is counted in an RFE, we can see which documents sufficed.
1. Invitation to judge
On official letterhead, 1–2 pages. 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, scoring criteria)
- Organizer contact details
An email from organizers printed and attached is acceptable.
2. Event program
Event description, bios of speakers/jury members, session details, evaluation procedure, and your name in the program (preferably with photo) significantly increase officer confidence.
3. Detailed letter from organizers
The most important document. The more detailed, the fewer questions the officer will have. Recommended sections:
- General information: date, place, history, significance, number of participants and countries
- Confirmation of participation: your role, expertise area, assessment of your work by organizers
- Evaluation criteria: how works were judged, standards
- Participants and nominations: who submitted works, categories, outcomes
- Jury composition: selection criteria, roles and duties
- Sponsors, partners, and media coverage
This letter can be cited in the petition as confirmation. The more specific each section is, the stronger the document.
Frequently asked questions
A Publons account without completed review records — not enough. You need two concrete documents.
Is peer reviewing scholarly 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 you completed the review. Just having a Publons or Web of Science account without proof of actual reviews is insufficient.
USCIS explicitly includes dissertation committees in examples of judging.
Is PhD defense participation considered judging?
Yes, if you were a member of a dissertation committee that decides whether a candidate earns the degree. USCIS explicitly lists this as an example. Provide documentation of committee membership and defense minutes.
Eighty-four pages of experts on a competition site — a real case that led to an RFE.
Is a large jury list on a contest website a problem?
Yes — a real RFE case. The officer saw 84 pages of “experts and jury” and wrote: “USCIS cannot assess the beneficiary’s specific contribution in this large pool.” If a jury has hundreds of people, clearly show your specific role, which works you evaluated, and what decisions you made.
Backdated letters are acceptable if the organization still exists.
Can organizers issue a letter retroactively?
Yes. This is common practice. Ask organizers for a confirmation letter on letterhead or an email. The letter must state what you did, when, and which works you evaluated. If the organization exists, request the letter.
USCIS explicitly calls out Globee Awards and similar “pay-to-play” prizes as problematic.
Is Globee Awards acceptable for the criterion?
Risky. USCIS explicitly calls out Globee in RFEs: “you were not invited; you applied,” “fees required,” “lack of major media coverage.” If Globee is your only evidence — weak. If Globee plus more credible judging — you can include it, but focus on stronger evidence.
Judging only in the year before filing is a problem for “sustained” acclaim.
I only started judging this year — is that a problem?
For plain language (step one) it may pass. For Final Merits (step two) the officer assesses sustained acclaim. If all judging occurred in the months before filing, it looks like petition preparation rather than career recognition. Better to show a pattern across multiple years (e.g., 2022, 2023, 2024).
Mentorship at hackathons is not judging even if you were called a “mentor-judge.”
I was a hackathon mentor — does that count?
No. USCIS explicitly states mentorship activities are not judging the work of others. A mentor helps teams; a judge evaluates final results. If you judged the hackathon final and chose winners — that’s judging. If you only mentored teams during the event — it’s mentorship, not judging.
For journals you must prove credibility — Scopus, DOAJ, impact factor.
I reviewed for a lesser-known journal — will it be accepted?
Depends on the journal. USCIS may request proof of the journal’s credibility: impact factor from Clarivate or Scopus, listing in DOAJ, publisher membership in COPE or OASPA. If the journal is not indexed anywhere — risky. Predatory journals will not pass.
Screenshots must be full pages with URL and date, not snippets pasted into Word.
How to prepare website screenshots?
USCIS 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.” Don’t paste cropped snippets into Word/PDF. Each screenshot should show the full page with the visible URL. If the page is long — provide multiple numbered screenshots.
Each foreign-language document needs a separate certified translation.
Do all documents need separate translations?
Yes. USCIS requires a full translation plus a translator’s certification that identifies the specific document translated. A single generic translation certificate that doesn’t identify documents will not meet requirements. One certificate for ten documents may be rejected. Each document needs its own certified translation and identification.
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.