Learn exactly what USCIS accepts as judging for O-1 visas. Critical differences between judging, mentoring, and hosting with approval and rejection examples.
USCIS rejects countless O-1 petitions because applicants confuse mentoring with judging. They sound similar. Both involve sharing expertise. Both help others. But only one satisfies the judging criterion.
The distinction comes down to formal evaluation versus informal guidance. Judging means assessing work against standards and making selection decisions. Mentoring means providing advice and support.
This guide clarifies exactly what judging vs mentoring O-1 requirements mean. You will learn which activities qualify, which get rejected, and how to position borderline cases properly.
The regulations require evidence you participated as a judge of others work in your field. Three elements must exist. First, you must evaluate work. Not just observe it. Not just discuss it. Actually assess its quality, merit, or suitability.
Second, the evaluation must be formal and structured. Casual feedback over coffee does not count. Using established criteria to score submissions does count. Third, you must have been selected to judge based on expertise. Organizations must have chosen you specifically because your qualifications make you suitable to evaluate professional work.
USCIS interprets "judge" narrowly. They want to see decision making authority. Did your evaluation influence selection outcomes? Did you determine who won, who got accepted, or whose work met standards? The regulations specify judging "the work of others" not "working with others." This language distinction matters significantly.
Activities involving collaboration, teaching, or advising typically fail. Activities involving evaluation, assessment, and selection typically succeed. Context matters too. The same activity might qualify or fail depending on how you performed it and how it is documented.
Examples of acceptable judging activities. Peer reviewing manuscripts for academic journals clearly qualifies. You evaluate research papers, recommend acceptance or rejection, and provide structured feedback to editors. This is formal evaluation with decision impact. Serving on conference program committees qualifies. You review paper submissions, score them against quality criteria, and help determine which papers get accepted for presentation.
Judging hackathons qualifies when structured properly. You score projects using rubrics, compare teams, and help select winners. Formal evaluation with clear outcomes. Evaluating startup applications for accelerators qualifies. You review applications, assess business potential using defined criteria, and participate in admission decisions.
Scoring pitch competitions qualifies. You evaluate presentations against judging criteria, assign scores or rankings, and influence which companies win prizes or recognition. Selecting award winners qualifies. When organizations ask you to help choose recipients of industry awards, you are formally evaluating candidates against award criteria.
Uncertain whether your student work evaluations qualify? Beyond Border can evaluate your specific circumstances and advise whether to include this evidence.
Now contrast with activities that do not qualify. Mentoring accelerator participants after they are accepted does not qualify. Once companies are in the program, helping them refine pitches or providing business advice is mentoring not judging.
Coaching entrepreneurs informally does not qualify. Meeting with founders to discuss strategy, providing feedback on ideas, or making introductions helps them but is not formal evaluation.
Office hours at conferences do not qualify. When you hold office hours where attendees can ask questions and seek advice, you are mentoring not judging their work. Speaking at startup events does not qualify. Giving a talk about your experiences or industry insights shares knowledge but involves no evaluation of others work.
Advising students on research projects typically does not qualify. Your regular advisory role with your graduate students is an educational relationship not peer evaluation. Providing feedback on colleague work products does not qualify when done informally. Reviewing a coworker's presentation deck or offering suggestions on their project is collaboration not judging.
