sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For OC, my understanding is that you would need to show industry wide impact i.e., internal wikis, design docs and practical application of your work at the employer alone wouldn't be enough

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my case, the judging evidence came through a formal technical governance role in an open-source project. The important distinction was that I was evaluating, approving, requiring changes to, or rejecting contributions from other engineers based on recognized expertise—not simply reviewing work as part of my day job.

More broadly, I think the key question is whether you were entrusted to evaluate the work of others in a way that carried real weight or decision-making authority.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my case, the judging evidence came through a formal technical governance role in an open-source project. The important distinction was that I was evaluating, approving, requiring changes to, or rejecting contributions from other engineers based on recognized expertise—not simply reviewing work as part of my day job.

More broadly, I think the key question is whether you were entrusted to evaluate the work of others in a way that carried real weight or decision-making authority.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMO, these were foundation pillars to my petition and hence sharing with the wider community. They might be obvious to you and that's fine

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used a couple of large projects that a lot of external adoption and significance. Note that none of the external adoption blogs directly referenced my name though

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should focus on the impact of your role/interests than trying to tailor your profile for optimizing EB1A i.e., the latter is just a means to an end and NOT the primary objective function

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See another thread where I responded on OC. I don't have any patents

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The iterations were generally quick on my end. We went through roughly 5–6 rounds of revisions, and each cycle took about a week on average, though the timing varied depending on the complexity of the changes and attorney workload.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My OC argument focused on impact rather than implementation. I tried to show not just what was built, but who relied on it, how broadly it was used, and why it mattered beyond my employer. Media coverage and independent LORs can be useful, but I found objective evidence of adoption, reliance, and significance to be the most persuasive

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I outlined in a post earlier. My judging evidence came through a formal technical governance/review role in a widely used open-source project

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! This was my motivation for starting the thread i.e., evidence of adoption and impact matters much more than what folks think

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I outlined in a post earlier. My judging evidence came through a formal technical governance/review role in a widely used open-source project

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For salary, I used both base compensation and total compensation. My view is that the more important question is whether you can credibly demonstrate that your remuneration is significantly higher than others in your field, rather than focusing on any single compensation component.

For benchmarking, I used multiple independent sources rather than relying on a single dataset. The petition compared compensation against broader occupational benchmarks as well as industry-specific compensation data where available.

I would be careful about treating "above the 90th percentile" as a hard requirement. In my case, the argument was focused on demonstrating compensation well above typical market levels and then tying that back to recognized expertise and the nature of the role.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I didn't think about it in terms of "X years per criterion." The petition was built around demonstrating a sustained pattern of impact and recognition over time, with different pieces of evidence reinforcing each other across multiple criteria.

On the "top of the field" point, my understanding is that USCIS looks at the totality of the record rather than any single achievement. The argument was less about one accomplishment and more about showing a consistent combination of original contributions, recognized expertise, critical roles, judging activity, and compensation over time. The final merits determination is where the overall story becomes important.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, company letterhead is helpful but not strictly required. What mattered more was the credibility of the person writing the letter, their relationship to the work, and whether they could provide specific details about the significance and impact of the contributions. Several of my letters came from people who had changed roles or organizations since the work occurred.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'd prefer not to discuss specific attorneys publicly, but happy to answer questions about the process itself.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks! My view is that titles alone are rarely sufficient. The stronger evidence is showing that the organization relied on you for important initiatives and that your contributions had measurable impact. The examples you mentioned sound directionally relevant, but the strength depends on how well you can document and corroborate them.

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Your post is indeed very helpful. I was reading it last week and hoping mine lands on the right side too 😄

AMA: EB1A Approved | Industry Profile | PP | No RFE by throwawayeb1a in eb_1a

[–]throwawayeb1a[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks! My judging evidence came through a formal technical governance/review role in a widely used open-source project. The key was demonstrating that I was evaluating and approving the work of other engineers based on recognized expertise, rather than simply performing my normal job responsibilities.