Volume 2 - Nonimmigrants

Examples:

• Awards from well-known national institutions and well-known professional associations.

• Certain doctoral dissertation awards and Ph.D. scholarships.

• Certain awards recognizing presentations at nationally or internationally recognized conferences.

Considerations:

While many scholastic awards do not have the requisite level of recognition, there are some Ph.D. scholarships or dissertation awards, for example, that are nationally or internationally recognized as awards for excellence such that they may satisfy the requirements of this criterion. Relevant considerations include, but are not limited to:

• The criteria use to grant the awards or prizes;

• The national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field;

• The number of awardees or prize recipients; and

• Limitations on eligible competitors.

For example, an award available only to persons within a single locality, employer, or school may have little national or international recognition, while an award open to members of a well-known national institution (including an R1 or R2 doctoral university^[2]) or professional organization may be nationally recognized.

Examples:

• Membership in certain professional associations.

• Fellowships with certain organizations or institutions.

Considerations:

The petitioner must show that membership in the association requires outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or international experts.

Associations may have multiple levels of membership. The petitioner must show that in order to obtain the level of membership afforded to the beneficiary, the beneficiary was judged by recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought.

As a possible example, membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) at the IEEE fellow level requires, in part, that a nominee have “accomplishments that have contributed importantly to the advancement or application of engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society,” and nominations are judged by an IEEE council of experts and a committee of current IEEE fellows.^[4] As another possible example, membership as a fellow in the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) is based on recognition of a nominee’s “significant, sustained contributions” to the field of artificial intelligence, and is judged by a panel of current AAAI fellows.^[5]

Relevant factors that may lead an officer to a conclusion that the person's membership in one or more associations was not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are not limited to, instances where the person's membership was based:

• Solely on a level of education or years of experience in a particular field;

• On the payment of a fee or by subscribing to an association's publications; or

• On a requirement, compulsory or otherwise, for employment in certain occupations, such as union membership.

Examples:

• Professional or major print publications (newspaper articles, popular and academic journal articles, books, textbooks, or similar publications) regarding the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work.

• Professional or major online publications regarding the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work.

• Transcript of professional or major audio or video coverage of the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work.

Considerations:

Published material that includes only a brief citation or passing reference to the beneficiary’s work is not “about” the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary’s work in the field, as required under this criterion. However, the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work need not be the only subject of the material; published material that covers a broader topic but includes a substantial discussion of the beneficiary’s work in the field and mentions the beneficiary in connection to the work may be considered material “about” the beneficiary relating to their work.

Moreover, officers may consider material that focuses solely or primarily on work or research being undertaken by a team of which the beneficiary is a member, provided that the material mentions the beneficiary in connection with the work, or other evidence in the record documents the beneficiary’s significant role in the work or research.

In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media).

Examples:

• Reviewer of abstracts or papers submitted for presentation at scholarly conferences in the respective field.

• Peer reviewer for scholarly publications.

• Member of doctoral dissertation committees.

• Peer reviewer for government research funding programs.

Considerations:

The petitioner must show that the beneficiary has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that the beneficiary actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization.

For example, a petitioner might document a beneficiary’s peer review work by submitting a copy of a request from a journal to the beneficiary to do the review, accompanied by evidence confirming that the beneficiary actually completed the review.

Examples:

• Published materials about the significance of the beneficiary’s original work.

• Testimonials, letters, and affidavits about the beneficiary’s original work.

• Documentation that the beneficiary’s original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field.

• Patents or licenses deriving from the beneficiary’s work or evidence of commercial use of the beneficiary’s work.

Considerations:

Analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary’s original work constitutes major, significant contributions to the field.

Evidence that the beneficiary’s work was funded, patented, or published, while potentially demonstrating the work’s originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of major significance to the field. However, published research that has provoked widespread commentary on its importance from others working in the field, and documentation that it has been highly cited relative to other works in that field, may be probative of the significance of the beneficiary’s contributions to the field of endeavor.

Similarly, evidence that the beneficiary developed a patented technology that has attracted significant attention or commercialization may establish the significance of the beneficiary’s original contribution to the field. If a patent remains pending, USCIS will likely require additional supporting evidence to document the originality of the beneficiary’s contribution.

Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the beneficiary’s contribution(s) may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed significance.

Submitted letters should specifically describe the beneficiary’s contribution and its significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer’s knowledge and expertise.

Examples:

• Publications in professionally-relevant journals.

• Published conference presentations at nationally or internationally recognized conferences.^[10]

Considerations:

In order to meet this criterion, the beneficiary must be a listed author of the submitted article(s) but need not be the sole or first author. In addition, a petitioner need not provide evidence that the beneficiary’s published work has been cited to meet this criterion.^[11]

In addition, the articles must be scholarly. In the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse. It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college, university, or research institution and the article is normally peer-reviewed.

In general, it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. In non-academic arenas, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field.

In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional journals) and the circulation or readership relative to other media in the field (for major media).

Examples:

• Senior faculty or senior research position for a distinguished academic department or program.

• Senior research position for a distinguished non-academic institution or company.

• Principal or named investigator for a department, institution, or business that received a merit-based government award, such as an academic research or Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant.^[13]

• Member of a key committee within a distinguished organization.

• Founder or co-founder of, or contributor of intellectual property to, a startup business that has a distinguished reputation.

• Critical or essential supporting role for a distinguished organization or a distinguished division of an institution or company, as explained in detail by the director or a principal investigator of the relevant organization or division.

Considerations:

To show a critical role, the evidence should establish that the beneficiary has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the organization or establishment’s activities. To show an essential role, the evidence should establish that the beneficiary’s role is (or was) integral to the entity. A leadership role in an organization often qualifies as critical or essential.

For a supporting role to be considered critical or essential, USCIS considers other factors, such as whether the beneficiary’s performance in the role is (or was) integral or important to the organization or establishment’s goals or activities, especially in relation to others in similar positions within the organization.

It is not the title of the beneficiary’s role, but rather the beneficiary’s duties and performance in the role that determines whether the role is (or was) critical or essential. Detailed letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the beneficiary’s role can be particularly helpful in analyzing this criterion. The organization need not have directly employed the beneficiary.

In addition, the organization or establishment must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. Relevant factors for evaluating the reputation of an organization or establishment can include the scale of its customer base, longevity, or relevant media coverage.

For academic departments, programs, and institutions, officers may also consider national rankings and receipt of government research grants as positive factors in some cases.

For a startup business, officers may consider evidence that the business has received significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or other such funders commensurate with funding rounds generally achieved for that startup’s stage and industry, as a positive factor regarding its distinguished reputation.

Examples:

• Tax returns, pay statements, or other evidence of past salary or remuneration for services.

• Contract, job offer letter, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for services.

• Comparative wage or remuneration data for the beneficiary’s field, such as geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys.

Considerations:

If the petitioner is claiming to meet this criterion, then the burden is on the petitioner to provide appropriate evidence establishing that the beneficiary’s compensation is high relative to others working in similar occupations in the field. The following webpages, among others, may be helpful in evaluating the relative compensation for a given field:

• The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Overview of BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation webpage; and

• The Department of Labor's Career One Stop webpage.

Officers should evaluate persons working outside of the United States based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence for that locality, rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States.

For entrepreneurs or founders of startup businesses, officers consider evidence that the business has received significant funding from government entities, venture capital funds, angel investors, or other such funders in evaluating the credibility of submitted contracts, job offer letters, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for services.

Note: This criterion differs from the third criterion, which is specific to organizations and establishments.^[2]

This criterion requires evidence of:

• The beneficiary’s past lead or starring participation in distinguished productions or events; and

• The beneficiary’s prospective lead or starring participation in distinguished productions or events.

Evidence may demonstrate a lead role by establishing that the person has a principal role in the event or production. A starring role means a position of great prominence relative to others in the event or production.^[3]

In evaluating the distinguished reputation of a past production or event, officers may consider factors such as favorable critical reception, high attendance levels, commercial success, or another indicator that the petitioner establishes would tend to distinguish the reputation of an event or production in the relevant field.

With regard to demonstrating the distinguished reputation of a prospective event, a petitioner may submit documentation such as advance publicity, endorsements, or other evidence regarding the level of anticipation of the relevant event or production. However, as the available evidence relating to the reputation of a prospective production or event will often be limited, officers may also consider factors such as the reputation of similar past events or productions by the same individuals or entities.  

In evaluating whether the beneficiary’s participation in a past or future event or production qualifies as lead or starring, officers may consider, for example, whether the beneficiary’s role is highlighted or featured in advertisements, publicity releases, critical reviews, or other materials. The contractual terms offered to the beneficiary may also be relevant to establishing the lead or starring nature of the beneficiary’s participation, especially with regard to a prospective event or production.

This criterion does not require that the beneficiary will have a lead or starring role in the specific U.S. events or productions for which O-1 classification is sought, or that such events or productions have a distinguished reputation. It is sufficient for the petitioner to otherwise demonstrate that the beneficiary has performed and will perform a qualifying role in a qualifying production within or outside of the United States.

To meet this criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence in the form of critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements.  Advertisements, publicity releases, and endorsements are promotional materials. Endorsements are public facing and serve a marketing purpose. This exhaustive list does not include unpublished testimonial or recommendation letters.

To meet this criterion, the petitioner must provide evidence that demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized for achievements nationally or internationally, in the form of:

• Critical review(s) or other published material(s) in a major newspaper(s), trade journal(s), magazine(s), or other publication(s) (which may include online publications or a transcript of radio or video coverage); and

• That are by or about the beneficiary.

The beneficiary and the beneficiary’s achievements need not be the only subject of the material in order to qualify as published material about the individual as described in this criterion. For example, published material that covers a broader production, exhibition, or topic, but includes a discussion of the beneficiary, or includes a discussion of the beneficiary’s work or achievement and mentions the beneficiary in connection to the work, may be considered material about the beneficiary. Material may be considered by the beneficiary even if the beneficiary is one of multiple authors.

In determining whether the submitted evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements, officers consider both the content of the published material and the level of recognition enjoyed by the publication in which it appears. For example, favorable coverage or publication of the beneficiary’s work in major media, as demonstrated by high relative circulation, readership, or viewership figures, could establish national or international recognition of the beneficiary’s achievements.

Note: This criterion differs from the first criterion, which is specific to productions or events.^[6]

This criterion requires evidence of:

• The beneficiary’s current or past lead, starring, or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment, including a distinguished division or department of such an entity; and

• The beneficiary’s prospective lead, starring, or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment, including a distinguished division or department of such an entity.

Evidence may demonstrate a lead role by establishing that the person has a principal role in the organization or establishment. A starring role means a position of great prominence relative to others in the organization.^[7]

To show a critical role, the evidence should establish that the beneficiary has contributed or will contribute in a way that is of significant importance to the organization or establishment’s activities. Officers consider factors such as whether the beneficiary’s performance in the role has been or will be integral or important to the organization or establishment’s goals or activities, especially in relation to others in similar positions within the organization.

Detailed letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the beneficiary’s role can be particularly helpful in addressing this criterion. Letters and testimonials should provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary’s role and the reputation of the organization or establishment and give the credentials of the author, including the basis of the author’s knowledge of the beneficiary’s role.

In addition, the organization or establishment, or the relevant division or department within the entity, must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. Relevant factors for evaluating the reputation of an entity or its department or division include, but are not limited to, the scale of its customer base, longevity, or relevant media coverage. The organization need not have directly employed the beneficiary.

This criterion requires evidence in the form of publications establishing the beneficiary’s record of major commercial or critically acclaimed success. The publications may include print or online publications or transcripts of radio or video coverage.

A submitted publication does not have to be primarily about the beneficiary and may be about a production in which the beneficiary performed. However, the record should demonstrate how the production’s major commercial or critically acclaimed success represents the beneficiary’s success. For instance, a petitioner might establish that a production’s success is in some way attributable to the beneficiary based on the significance of the beneficiary’s contributions.

A publication reporting the commercial success of the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s work should reflect that the ratings, receipts, sales, revenue, standing, or other occupational achievement represent major successes in the relevant field. If demonstrating critically acclaimed success, the evidence should demonstrate that the beneficiary’s work has received public-facing praise or positive reviews in the relevant field, such as from professional art, television, or film critics.

To meet this criterion, the evidence must establish the beneficiary has received significant recognition for one or more achievements from an organization, critic, government agency, or other recognized expert in the field. The word significant in this criterion modifies recognition rather than achievements. Accordingly, although the beneficiary must have one or more achievements, the significance of the recognition is based on who is recognizing the achievements.

A testimonial written on behalf of an organization or government agency should explain the basis for the author’s knowledge including the author’s connection to the organization or agency, and the significance of the organization or agency within the relevant field. Likewise, a testimonial from a critic or a recognized expert should explain the basis of the author’s knowledge and describe the author’s credentials including the author’s expertise in the relevant field.^[10] The author should also describe and explain the significance of the achievements the author is recognizing. 

In all cases, a submitted testimonial should detail any achievements that are being recognized by the organization, agency, or individual. However, the testimonial need not describe other types of recognition that the beneficiary has received for a noted achievement. Instead, the testimonial itself may qualify as significant recognition under this criterion when the significance of the recognizing organization, agency, or individual is established.

To demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion, the petitioner should provide appropriate evidence establishing that the beneficiary’s past or future compensation is or will be high relative to others working in the field. 

When evaluating assertions regarding future compensation, officers may consider the credibility of submitted contracts, job offer letters, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for services.

Petitioners often submit wage surveys to show a comparison. Wage survey data, including but not limited to government wage survey data such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, may be helpful in evaluating the relative compensation for a given field. When evaluating whether an accurate comparison is being made between the beneficiary’s documented remuneration and the remuneration in the survey, the following considerations, among others, may be relevant: 

• The description of the occupation. Broad descriptions that include multiple occupations or multiple industries may not provide an accurate comparison to others in the field. For example, directors and producers might be listed as a single category across industries, but evidence that a film director receives high remuneration based on a broad range of occupational data that include disparate occupations such as film director and radio show producer, may not be sufficiently probative. 

• The validity of the survey. Some websites provide user-reported salary data, which may not be a valid comparison if, for example, too few users reported their salaries or the data is otherwise not credible or reliable.

• Location and currency. Officers evaluate persons working outside of the United States based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence relevant to the applicable work location, rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States.

• Salary rate being measured. Officers consider whether the comparison data measures an hourly rate or an annual salary. Another consideration is how that information compares to the beneficiary’s pay. Many artists (including MPTV) are not paid an hourly rate but instead are paid a daily rate (which may not be equivalent to 8 hours) or are paid a certain amount for a project (involving an unknown number or hours). However, hourly wage data may still be probative if the petitioner submits documentation regarding the number of hours worked. Such documentation can include, but is not limited to, pay statements, personnel records, or testimonial evidence from the relevant employer.