ReviewAdvanced

O-1 / EB-1 / NIW Criteria Evidence Mapper

At case strategy stage for O-1, EB-1 or NIW petitions, or when an RFE challenges specific criteria, to see which criteria the evidence actually supports and what corroboration is missing.

Immigration Law

O-1, EB-1 and National Interest Waiver petitions rise or fall on evidence mapped tightly to regulatory criteria. Beneficiaries tend to send everything (every award, article, conference talk and letter) and the attorney's job is to decide which criteria the record actually satisfies, which are stretches, and what corroboration is missing. Claiming too many weak criteria can dilute a petition and invite an RFE.

This prompt has you paste the criteria text verbatim, so the analysis tracks the current wording rather than a summary, and then maps each exhibit to each criterion with a quoted fact, a strength rating and the corroboration still needed. It recommends which criteria to claim, flags exhibits stretched across several criteria, drafts factual requests to recommenders, and lists questions for the beneficiary.

The map is evidence triage, not an eligibility determination. Whether the beneficiary meets the overall standard, including any final merits determination, is an attorney judgment under current regulations and USCIS policy, which the attorney must verify. Recommendation letters must reflect the recommender's own knowledge and words; use the drafted requests to prompt them, not to write their letters.

The Prompt

I represent [PETITIONER] for beneficiary [NAME], field: [FIELD], in a [O-1A / O-1B / EB-1A / EB-1B / EB-2 NIW] petition. I want to map the evidence we have to each criterion before deciding which criteria to claim.

<criteria>
[PASTE THE REGULATORY CRITERIA OR PRONGS VERBATIM FROM THE CURRENT REGULATION AND POLICY GUIDANCE, ONE PER LINE, LABELED]
</criteria>

<exhibits>
[LIST OR PASTE EACH EXHIBIT WITH AN ID: AWARDS, PRESS, PUBLICATIONS, CITATION DATA, JUDGING, MEMBERSHIPS, SALARY DATA, LETTERS, ETC.]
</exhibits>

<beneficiary_cv>
[PASTE CV]
</beneficiary_cv>

Step 1. Output a table with one row per criterion:
[CRITERION] (quoted from my criteria block) | Exhibits that support it (by ID, with the specific fact or quote) | Rating: Strong / Moderate / Weak / None | Why (one or two lines) | Missing corroboration

Step 2. Recommend which criteria to claim and which to drop, explaining that weak criteria can dilute the petition. Note where the same exhibit is being stretched across several criteria.

Step 3. For each recommender letter we still need, draft a short request to the recommender listing the specific facts they are positioned to confirm from first-hand knowledge, the exhibits they could reference, and a request that they describe the beneficiary's work in their own words.

Step 4. List questions for the beneficiary (missing dates, metrics, circulation figures for media, selection criteria for awards, salary comparison data).

Rules: Use only the criteria text I supplied. Do not judge whether the overall standard is met. Do not overstate an exhibit; quote it. This is a draft for my review, and I will confirm criteria text against current regulations and policy.

Example Output

A criterion-by-criterion evidence table with strength ratings, a recommendation on which criteria to claim, tailored recommender request drafts and a list of questions for the beneficiary.

Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.

CRITERIA EVIDENCE MAP
Beneficiary: Dr. Ilse Moreau (fictional) | Field: battery materials research | EB-1A
(Criterion labels shortened here; the full output quotes each criterion as pasted.)

[CRITERION: Published material about the beneficiary in major media]
  Exhibits: E-4 trade magazine profile ("Moreau's cathode coating..."); E-5 university news release
  Rating: Moderate
  Why: E-4 is about her work by name; E-5 is institutional and may not count as independent media.
  Missing: Circulation or readership data for E-4's publication.

[CRITERION: Participation as a judge of the work of others]
  Exhibits: E-9 reviewer invitations from two journals (12 reviews logged)
  Rating: Moderate (Strong once completed reviews are documented)
  Why: Repeated invitations, but invitations alone may not show actual participation.
  Missing: Confirmation emails showing completed reviews, not just invitations.

[CRITERION: Original contributions of major significance]
  Exhibits: E-2 patent; E-12 citation report; letters L-1, L-3
  Rating: Moderate
  Why: Patent shows originality; significance depends on letters describing adoption.
  Missing: Evidence of industry use (licensing, product integration).

[CRITERION: High salary relative to others in the field]
  Exhibits: E-14 offer letter
  Rating: Weak
  Why: No comparative salary data.
  Missing: Survey data for the field and region.

RECOMMENDATION
Claim: judging (after completed reviews are documented), original contributions, authorship (row not shown in this excerpt). Hold: media (pending circulation data). Drop: high salary unless comparative data is obtained.
Stretch warning: E-12 citation report is used for three criteria.

RECOMMENDER REQUEST (Dr. Okonkwo, L-3)
Could you describe, from your own knowledge, how your lab adopted Dr. Moreau's coating method, when, and what results you observed? Please write in your own words.

QUESTIONS FOR BENEFICIARY
- Which companies, if any, license the patent?

Draft for attorney review. Confirm criteria text against current regulations and policy.

Tips

•Paste the criteria text yourself from the current regulation and policy guidance so the map tracks the exact wording, not a paraphrase.
•Give each exhibit a short ID before you start; the table and the recommender requests become much easier to cross-check.
•Consider dropping criteria rated Weak unless new evidence is coming; weak claims add little and can cost credibility.
•Never draft a recommender's letter for them; send the factual request and let the recommender write in their own words.
•Pair with the RFE response drafter if USCIS has already questioned specific criteria.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do I paste the criteria myself?

Criteria wording matters, and regulations and USCIS policy guidance are updated. Pasting the current text from the official source ensures the map tracks the actual language rather than a model's memory of it. It also lets you use the same prompt across O-1, EB-1 and NIW by swapping the criteria block.

Does a Strong rating mean the criterion will be accepted?

No. The rating reflects how directly the pasted exhibits match the pasted criterion text. USCIS evaluates the evidence under its own standards and may weigh it differently. Use the ratings to prioritize evidence gathering and argument, and apply your own judgment and experience with current adjudication trends.

Can Claude write the recommendation letters?

This prompt drafts requests to recommenders, not the letters. Letters should reflect the recommender's own first-hand knowledge and words. Ghost-written, generic letters tend to carry little weight and can raise credibility concerns. Send the recommender the factual points they can confirm and let them write the letter.

How does this handle NIW, which uses prongs rather than criteria?

Paste the prongs or factors from the current controlling standard into the criteria block, labeled one per line. The map works the same way: exhibits per prong, a rating and missing corroboration. Confirm the current standard yourself before relying on the analysis.

Get New Prompts Like This Every Week

Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.