When should I run the checklist?

Before filing, once the packet is assembled: the checklist tests not whether documents exist but how an officer will read them. A second time when preparing an RFE response, to see which of the typical questions you were asked.

Do all eleven sections have to be closed?

No. The first three - profession, criteria mapped to exhibits, biography matching the field - apply to every petition; the other eight test only the criteria you claim.

Where do the questions come from?

From more than fifty 2022-2023 RFEs on O-1 and EB-1A petitions shared by community members; the officers' wording is paraphrased. This is not legal advice.

How is the checklist different from the list of criteria?

The list of criteria says what to prove; the checklist shows how an officer tests evidence already filed: does a publication carry a date and an author, who assessed candidates for the association, whom the salary is compared with.

Self-check for an O-1 or EB-1A petition: the RFE checklist

Eleven readiness checks distilled from real RFEs: one profession, criteria mapped to exhibits, media, judging, contributions, articles, role, salary, membership, awards.

Key answer

The eleven sections below are built from questions USCIS officers asked in real RFEs on O-1 and EB-1A petitions. The point of the check is not "is the document there" but "what will the officer see on opening it". The first three sections concern the whole petition; the other eight concern individual criteria - run only the ones you claim.

Source: a community members' checklist (o1eb1.com) based on more than fifty 2022-2023 RFEs, prepared by non-lawyers; it gives the officers' wording in translation, so it is paraphrased here. Not legal advice.

1. One profession

The petition claims one professional field, and every piece of evidence belongs to it.
Achievements from an adjacent profession are not used as the core: an athlete and a coach, a builder and a designer are different fields for USCIS.
If the profession changed, the petition is built around the current one, even if the track record in it is shorter.

What officers wrote: the professions "differ markedly", and one area of extraordinary ability must be chosen for the petition - citing Lee v. Ziglar.

2. Criteria mapped to exhibits

Every claimed criterion states which exhibits close it.
Evidence is not dumped into one list: each item has an exhibit number and a label naming the criterion it serves.
The cover letter cites exhibit numbers, not "see documents".

What officers wrote: the exhibit list does not indicate which exhibits support which criterion - please clarify.

3. Biography matches the profession

Education and work history support the claimed field.
If the degree is from another field, it is explained what proves professional knowledge in the claimed one.

What officers wrote: for most of the career the applicant worked in a different field and was trained in a third - please submit objective evidence of knowledge in the claimed field.

4. Published material about you

The full text of the publication is attached, not a headline or an excerpt.
Each publication shows the outlet's name, the date and the author; the author is not you.
Every screenshot page shows the URL; for print, a photo or scan of the page.
A translation is attached with the translator's certification of competence.
Circulation or audience is shown, compared with the field's main outlets, and the metrics are explained.
The outlet is qualified as professional, trade or major; a regional audience is named as such.
The piece is about you and your work, is not marketing, and was not published on the eve of filing.

What officers wrote: web portals and platforms open to user and marketing content are not legitimate media; the significance of the metrics was not explained; publications aimed at a regional audience are usually not major media.

5. Judging

There is a document of appointment as a judge or jury member: an invitation, an order, a certificate.
It is described by which criteria you specifically were invited - without "best" or "leading".
The judging belongs to your field and qualifications.
Traces of the evaluation itself are attached: score sheets, minutes, reports, a description of decisions.
It is shown that those evaluated were at your level or above.

What officers wrote: competitions in another specialty do not relate to the applicant's field; it was not established that the applicant actually reviewed others' work; the competition site lists 84 pages of "experts and jury" - a wide range of qualifications is admitted.

6. Original contributions

Significance is shown for the whole field, not just a business or its clients: publications, patents, reports, statistics, contracts, adoption by others.
There is wide discussion of the work in professional media, or citations.
Expert letters exist - and there is something besides them.
All material belongs to the claimed field, authorship is proven, links open.

What officers wrote: the pages at the petition's links were not found; expert letters can help, but the work's significance must be supported by pre-existing independent evidence; mere participation in events or publication of work is not enough.

7. Scholarly articles

The article reports original research, has footnotes and a bibliography, and went through peer review.
It is shown that the article addresses specialists: the venue, citations, reviews.
Authorship is confirmed, for instance by a publisher's letter; the article belongs to the claimed field.
The outlet's standing is confirmed: an editorial letter, audience, rankings, citations.

What officers wrote: the article is an opinion piece not based on original research and is not considered scholarly; the applicant's name appears as "director", but participation in the research is not shown.

8. Leading or critical role

Documents on the role are attached: appointment orders, a description of duties, role-related awards.
The place in the hierarchy is shown - an org chart or a verbal description of it.
Influence on the organisation beyond routine duties is shown: figures before and after, episodes where the role was decisive.
Letters come from current or former employers with personal knowledge of the role, with a comparison to peers, with the author's name, address and title, a date, letterhead and a corporate e-mail.
The organisation's distinguished reputation is confirmed by external sources, not only its own press releases.

What officers wrote: only a few roles are critical for an organisation and must be evident from the position in the overall hierarchy; documents placing the beneficiary in the hierarchy were not submitted; a letter without a date, not on letterhead and with a personal e-mail address raises doubts about its authenticity.

9. High salary

W-2, 1099 or foreign tax documents for the relevant years are attached.
The comparison is with comparable specialists of the same specialisation, not "above the average for the profession".
Comparison sources are objective: US Department of Labor data and authoritative professional bodies; user-reported salary sites are called unreliable.
Geography is respected: comparison with the country of work, not a conversion into dollars.
There is a job offer on letterhead with the title, pay scale and duties, or contracts.

What officers wrote: "manager" is too broad a title, and its statistics do not allow any meaningful comparison.

10. Membership in associations

There is objective proof of membership: a certificate, a profile page.
The bylaws section with the criteria for your grade of membership is attached.
It is shown that membership is not based only on employment, education, experience, dues or peer recommendations.
It is shown who evaluates candidates and why they are recognised experts.
The association's profile matches the claimed field.

What officers wrote: the bylaws contain no explicit requirement of outstanding achievements and do not describe evaluation by recognised national or international experts.

11. Awards

Photos or scans of every award are attached, with proof that the award is yours and not the company's.
What it was given for is described, including the nomination and evaluation criteria.
There is a list of past laureates, the number of entrants and the number of awards per year.
The award belongs to your field, and its significance in the field is confirmed by external sources and media.

What officers wrote: the awards reflect recognition by the issuing organisations but not national or international recognition; the words "national" or "international" in a certificate's title are not enough.

How to use it

Assemble the whole packet, including the cover letter and the exhibit list: the checklist tests a finished packet, not a plan.

Run sections 1-3 - they apply to every petition.

Run the sections for the criteria you claim. An item without a document is a future RFE question; close it or drop the criterion.

Re-read through the officer's eyes: every exhibit has a number, a date, an author, a translation and a link to a criterion.

8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) - the ten EB-1A criteria
8 CFR 214.2(o)(3) - the O-1 criteria
USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 - evaluating EB-1A evidence

Reference material, not legal advice: officers reach different decisions on identical evidence.

Related materials - Prepare and file

All articles in «Prepare and file»

Next stepAssemble & check the packetAssemble the petition packet calmly: organizer, formatting check, readiness and a printable index.

From community discussions

«Then immediately write a request to expedite with a one-page letter. The request should come from the inviting organization, to the Department of State, on why your talk and presence in person are so extremely important. And it's good if they say that a hybrid format is impossible. Additionally you can make a request through a senator/state representative.»
Olga · from public community chats
«The article or talk itself is the second prong. But proving its impact is already the first.»
community member · from public community chats
«The attempt to file a motion to reconsider ended with nothing. We waited 3 months. Then we just refiled the case and it was approved there in 2 weeks. Without premium fees.»
community member · from public community chats

Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.

Did this answer help?

Open database - you can improve it

Found something off, or know what to add? Select text and hit "Suggest an edit", or propose an article/topic below.