Chicago Immigration Lawyer Blog
The judging criterion recognizes an important feature of professional life. Fields often ask accomplished individuals to evaluate the work of others. A scholar reviews manuscripts. A physician reviews grant proposals. A choreographer judges a competition. A founder evaluates startup pitches. An artist reviews portfolios. A coach selects athletes. These activities may show that others trust the beneficiary’s expertise.
The regulation requires evidence that the beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others, either individually or on a panel, in the same or an allied field. Participation matters. USCIS usually wants proof that the beneficiary actually judged the work, not merely proof that someone invited the beneficiary to do so.
A recent AAO’s senior scientist decision illustrates the issue. The petitioner submitted emails requesting manuscript reviews. One email showed that the beneficiary agreed to review a paper. The AAO found the evidence insufficient because the record did not prove that the beneficiary completed the reviews. The request and acceptance suggested possible judging, but they did not prove participation.
The same principle applies in entrepreneurship or arts cases. A screenshot naming a person as a judge may help, but the petition should include confirmation that the beneficiary served, what the beneficiary judged, how the beneficiary was selected, and whether the work belonged to the same or an allied field. For competitions, the petition should include the event rules, judge roster, scoring criteria, and evidence that the beneficiary evaluated contestants. For peer review, the petition should include review history, completed review confirmations, journal acknowledgments, editorial board records, or platform screenshots showing completed assignments.
Kazarian remains important despite recent successful challenges before a district court because it cautions USCIS against adding requirements not found in the regulation. The Ninth Circuit held that USCIS could not require a dissertation reviewer to serve at a university with which he had no affiliation as a threshold requirement. The proper question at the first step is whether the evidence fits the criterion. The quality and significance of the judging may then matter in the final merits analysis.
For example, a scientist who completed twenty peer reviews for leading journals has a stronger record than a scientist who reviewed one internal abstract. Both may present threshold evidence, depending on the proof, but the former may carry more weight in the totality analysis. A designer who judged an international juried competition can explain the selection criteria and reputation. A chef who judged a local tasting event may need more evidence to show why the judging reflects field recognition.
A strong judging exhibit should answer four questions:
- who selected the beneficiary,
- what work did the beneficiary evaluate,
- did the beneficiary actually complete the judging, and
- why did the role reflect recognition of expertise?
Zneimer & Zneimer’s experienced O-1 attorneys in Chicago prepare judging evidence as a record of expert trust. The petition should show actual evaluation through credibility, professionalism, and honesty. If you have questions or need assistance with an O-1 petition, do not hesitate to contact our immigration attorneys.