A Practical Guide to the Most Common EB-1A Evidence (and How USCIS Reviews It)

1. Awards: What Counts and What USCIS Looks For

Awards can be strong evidence when they reflect external, merit-based recognition. USCIS reviews the selection criteria, the credibility of the awarding body, and competitiveness. One selective, prestigious, and well-documented award carries more weight than numerous awards with lower standards.

Awards that generally qualify

• National or international industry awards
• Juried or expert-reviewed recognitions
• Competitive awards granted by respected institutions

Awards that do not qualify

• Pay-to-play awards (for example: Globee, Titan, Stevie awards are typically more scrutinized)
• Awards requiring payment to apply, enter, or be featured
• Internal company awards
• Awards without documented selection criteria

Applicants sometimes assume that a long list of awards signals distinction. In practice, USCIS focuses on the selectivity and credibility of the award.

2. Memberships: When They Work and When They Don’t

To meet this criterion, a membership must require outstanding achievement judged by experts in the field. USCIS examines the admission criteria, membership levels, and the reputation of the association.

Memberships that may qualify

• Fellow-level or senior memberships based on documented, merit-based selection
• Invitation-only associations evaluated by recognized experts

Memberships that do not qualify

• Memberships based solely on paying dues or meeting basic professional requirements
• General associations without selective criteria

Applicants often include memberships without describing the admissions process. USCIS will not infer selectivity from the name of the organization; documentation is essential.

3. Media Coverage About You and Your Work

Media coverage can strengthen a petition when it is independent, credible, and directly discusses the applicant’s work. USCIS evaluates whether the coverage highlights the applicant’s contributions and whether the publication is reputable.

Media coverage that may qualify

• Profiles or interviews discussing the applicant’s work
• Articles highlighting projects where the applicant played a documented role
• Coverage in recognized industry, business, or scientific outlets

Media coverage that does not qualify

• Press releases
• Sponsored or paid content
• Articles focused solely on an employer, unless the applicant’s role is detailed

4. Judging the Work of Others

Judging is often straightforward for USCIS to evaluate. Officers look for evidence of both the invitation and the completed review.

Examples that may qualify

• Reviewing journal manuscripts
• Reviewing conference submissions
• Serving on review or selection panels for competitions or programs

Applicants sometimes list reviewing activity without documentation, but USCIS typically expects proof of both the invitation to judge and the completed work.

5. Original Contributions of Major Significance

This criterion requires strong documentation. USCIS evaluates whether the applicant’s work is both original and influential within the field.

Evidence that may support this criterion

• Technologies, tools, or methods adopted or used by others
• Products with measurable reach or outcomes
• Research, analysis, or initiatives that influenced practice or generated field-level recognition
• Contributions that peers reference, rely on, or cite frequently

Applicants often have meaningful contributions but do not document who uses the work or how it has shaped the field. This makes it harder for USCIS to assess significance.

6. Leading or Critical Roles for Distinguished Organizations

To meet this criterion, USCIS reviews both the reputation of the organization and the applicant’s specific responsibilities. The focus is on the importance of the work and its outcomes—not the title alone.

Roles that may qualify

• Founders or senior contributors at recognized companies (for example, a director-level leader at a well-known consulting firm)
• Roles tied directly to significant product, research, or business outcomes
• Specialized positions where the applicant is one of few experts performing a key function

Applicants sometimes rely heavily on titles, but USCIS expects documentation showing the organization’s stature and how the applicant’s work contributed to meaningful outcomes.

7. High Salary or Other High Compensation

Compensation evidence is evaluated relative to the applicant’s peers. USCIS reviews salary documentation, contracts or offer letters, equity information, and reliable comparison data.

Evidence that may support this criterion

• Salary in the top percentiles for the field
• Equity compensation supported by valuation data
• Contracts or offer letters showing strong prospective compensation

8. Patterns USCIS Looks For Across Evidence

Across all criteria, USCIS tends to evaluate evidence through several consistent lenses:

• Independence: recognition from outside the applicant’s organization
• Selectivity: whether the achievement required merit-based evaluation
• Credibility: the reputation of the awarding body, journal, or organization
• Documentation: clear proof of what occurred and why it is significant
• Impact: evidence of adoption, reach, or influence beyond internal teams

9. Common Issues That Lead to RFEs or Denials

USCIS often flags the following issues:

• Awards or memberships with unclear or non-merit-based criteria
• Evidence included without explanation or context
• Job titles without supporting documentation of impact
• Press coverage focused on employers rather than the applicant
• Expert letters that are broad but not tied to specific criteria
• Original contributions that lack proof of external adoption or recognition

These issues often stem from unclear documentation rather than weak achievements.

10. How to Evaluate Your Own Evidence

A helpful starting point is to review your evidence through a few key questions:

• Is it supported by credible, independent sources?
• Have you documented the selection process, scope, or impact?
• Does it show recognition or influence beyond your organization?
• Does each piece of evidence directly support the criterion it’s linked to?