Judge of the work of others: what it means in an RFE or denial
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Evidence of the alien'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.
How USCIS checks this criterion
- 1«USCIS determines whether the person has acted as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification.»
What it means
Judging
Judging is an O-1 / EB-1A criterion: you evaluated the work of others in your field. Peer review for journals, competition and award juries, hackathon judging and grant review all count - with documents proving the invitation and actual participation.
Show both the fact and the level: whom you judged, at whose invitation and why you were chosen. A single review is weaker than regular participation.
Where people in your field actually get judging roles (journals, competitions, programs) is in the catalog and the field guide; proof means invitations, jury lists, organizer letters.
The glossary entryFrom the knowledge base: Glossary of Terms for U.S. Talent Visas O-1, EB-1, EB-2
This is the layer of terminology that separates people who just read instructions from those who understand the reasoning behind denials. All these terms appear in AAO decisions and in RFE texts, and without knowing them, it is impossible to understand why some cases are denied despite meeting all criteria.
Read the full articleThe "Judging" criterion: what a response does with it
7 typical objections across 43 real denials - broken down on the criterion page.
plain language not met
Give a brief explanation in plain language: the applicant did more than present: they evaluated the work of other participants against set criteria and influenced the selection or award results.
Evidence: Plain language summary, description of the role, list of evaluation criteria, brief outline of the judging process.
no competition details
Show the level and nature of the competition: who organized it, who could participate, how participants were selected, what was evaluated, and how the winners were determined.
Evidence: Competition rules, regulations, event website, agenda, categories, evaluation criteria, participant and country or region statistics.
speaking engagements are not the same as judging
Separate the speaker role from the judge role. State that the presentation was a separate part, while judging involved evaluating others' work, filling out forms, and taking part in committee decisions.
Evidence: Organizer's letter appointing the applicant as a judge, judging sheets, minutes, jury panel screenshots, schedule with a separate judging block.
What the officer actually did with this criterion
Across 171 of 259 real notices where this criterion appears, what the officer's own text did with it. In 21% he discussed the evidence that was filed; in 58% the criterion appeared only as recited regulation.
- engaged with the evidence21% · 36the officer wrote about the specific exhibits, not the criterion in general
- only recited the criterion58% · 100the regulation text with no discussion of what was filed
- questioned it2% · 3asked for more without deciding
- explicitly rejected it8% · 14
- explicitly accepted it10% · 17
- noted nothing was filed1% · 1
These are notices - petitions that already drew an RFE, a NOID or a denial - so none of this is an approval rate. It measures attention, not outcome: a criterion the officer usually only recites is one where more exhibits are unlikely to change the reading, and a criterion he argues with in detail is where the response has to do its work.
What the chats ask about "Judge of the work of others"
- 2×journals with which it is easy to meet the criteria
- 2×I read the chat and honestly did not understand if IEEE senior membership and other activities like judging, articles, etc. have value. Is it worth investing effort there?
- 2×Do you have examples of peer reviews of scholarly articles? What should reviews look like?
- 2×So let's say I have the Teacher of the Year award and I am a culture excellence student. I was a jury member in the republican competition. From 2021 to 2025, I am the Deputy Director of a music school. I have two methodological programs for special and general piano and earn more than my peers in the field.
- 2×Where to find companies to judge
- 2×How to close judging
Community answers
- How should you position your profession for EB-1A/O-1 if your background is varied?
- You need to frame a single area of expertise so that awards, publications, recommendations, judging, contributions, and future plans fit into one coherent story. Positioning that is too broad or inconsistent weakens the case, so it helps to first gather the evidence and determine which professional line is best supported.
- What do they usually ask at an EB-1A or EB-2 NIW consular interview?
- Most often, they ask general questions about the case: professional experience, projects, awards, publications, judging, plans in the United States, and the content of the petition. You usually do not need to retell the entire case, but it is useful to know your documents and bring key materials with you.
- How do you document the judging/reviewing criterion if the person served as a reviewer, auditor, or committee member?
- It is important to show the invitation and that the evaluation was actually performed: invitation letters, thank-you letters, minutes, records of reviews, decisions, or selections. It is also helpful to explain who issued the invitation, what the organization does, and why it is relevant to the applicant's field.
- How do you know whether to apply for O-1/EB-1A or choose a regular visa instead?
- First, it is worth studying the basic requirements for talent visas and making a list of achievements: awards, publications, judging, memberships, significant roles, commercial success, media coverage, and contributions to the industry. Then it is useful to compare your profile with the criteria and go into a consultation with specific questions and documents already prepared.
- How do you strengthen the judging criterion for EB-1A/O-1?
- Look for real professional competitions, awards, conferences, hackathons, or expert selection processes in your field where you can serve as a judge or reviewer. What matters is participation and evidence of your selection, role, the level of the event, and the significance of the work being evaluated.
- Does judging qualify for the judging criterion, and what events count?
- Not all judging is equally useful. Cases are usually stronger when you evaluate work by professionals at a comparable level or significant competitions/conferences at least at the national level, rather than local school events.
Where people go wrong - from the chats
- mistakeYou must not artificially invent or fabricate criteria, publications, judging, expertise, or achievements. Fake evidence creates a risk of fraud allegations and long-term immigration consequences.
- mistakeTeaching a subject at a university by itself usually does not satisfy the exhibitions or public display of work criterion. That fact may instead support criteria for professional recognition, contributions, judging, authorship, or a leading role, depending on the evidence.
- mistakePeople often try to satisfy the judging criterion with irrelevant activities, such as evaluating students; stronger cases are those where the applicant judged the work of professionals or significant industry projects.
- mistakeNot every presentation, consultation, or professional opinion counts as judging. You need to show that the applicant actually evaluated the work of other professionals under formal or verifiable criteria.
Myths and reality
Myth: It is enough to simply mention judging, peer review, or participation in evaluating others' work, and this will automatically strengthen EB-2 NIW.
In reality: This evidence must be presented in the context of the category requirements and its significance must be explained. For NIW, it is not always central and may be weak if it is not connected to national importance, proposed endeavor, and the applicant's role.
Myth: To claim judging or peer review, the applicant must have published in the same journal where they served as a reviewer.
In reality: Peer review may count as judging the work of other professionals even if the applicant did not publish in the same journal; what matters is the publication's status, the reality of the invitation, and confirmation of the work performed.
Rules and tips from the chats
- tipAfter getting O-1, those who plan to apply for EB-1 in the future usually should not stop building evidence: publications, speaking engagements, judging, mentions, and other signs of recognition.
- ruleThe absence of major international awards does not mean EB-1/O-1 is impossible. A case can be built on a combination of publications, citations, professional contributions, expertise, judging, associations, and recommendations.
- ruleFor scientific cases, articles, citations, peer review, contributions, and recommendations are regularly evaluated. A low number of citations does not always rule out filing, but in that situation other evidence of independent recognition must be strengthened and the significance of the work must be explained in a way the officer can understand.
- tipWhen preparing an immigration case, it is useful to store evidence systematically in advance: publications, letters, contracts, proof of memberships, awards, judging, income, media, taxes, and work results. It is better to keep a structured archive even if filing has not started yet.
- tipBefore consulting an attorney, it is useful to assemble a basic file yourself: CV, publications, awards, memberships, reviews, media, judging, salary evidence, and other materials, so the chances assessment is substantive.
- tipA high citation index, publications, peer review, patents, media, critical role, and high salary can be used as evidence, but the set of criteria depends on the specific profile and field.
Cases from the community
EB-1A · film and digital media · outcome not stated
The applicant is preparing a case based on achievements in the creative industry and is trying to strengthen the criterion of judging other professionals' work.
What they did: Is looking for opportunities to serve as a judge or evaluator of work, including films, short films, scripts, and video scripts.
EB-1A or O-1 · professional activity · outcome not stated
The applicant is evaluating the criterion for judging the work of others and believes they have suitable evidence because they have served several times as a judge or evaluator.
What they did: Plans to include judging experience in the evidentiary record for the extraordinary ability category.
EB-1A · professional activity / digital · outcome not stated
The applicant uses judging as one element of the evidence base, while the judging activities were tied to the same event in different years.
What they did: Plans to present several instances of judging as proof of the judging criterion, with an explanation of the repeated nature and independence of the participation.
Questions and answers on the site
Distilled from the public community chats, anonymised; corpus as of June 2026. These are participants' observations, not legal advice and not USCIS statistics.
Related
Frequently asked questions
- What does "Judge of the work of others" mean?
- Judging is an O-1 / EB-1A criterion: you evaluated the work of others in your field. Peer review for journals, competition and award juries, hackathon judging and grant review all count - with documents proving the invitation and actual participation.
- What does "USCIS determines whether the person has acted as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." mean?
- The Policy Manual test for this criterion (Vol. 6, Part F, Ch. 2): USCIS determines whether the person has acted as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification.
- Where is this stated officially?
- 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) - the text of the criteria: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-204/subject-group-ECFR96c9ef8bde35b31/section-204.5
The sentence is quoted from its official source (link under the quote); the explanation is assembled from the site glossary, the precedent notes, the knowledge base and distilled community observations. Not legal advice; the site is not affiliated with USCIS.