When an RFE Challenges the Judging / Peer Review Criterion

“Here, the phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). ... Initial evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary is "recognized in the field of expertise", so the regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of evaluating subordinate employees or products.”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

The officer is pre-empting the most common overreach on this criterion — counting internal performance reviews or product evaluations as "judging the work of others." If your evidence is of that kind, adding more of it will not help.

“You submitted evidence that you were a judge. However, the evidence does not appear to show that your judging was in your field of endeavor of [job title]. ... Without substantive evidence of your participation as a judge of the work of others in your field ... or an allied field which is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, USCIS cannot conclude that you meet this criterion.”

This case was approved after the RFE response。

The officer accepted that judging happened, and rejected it on field alignment only. Note how narrowly "field of endeavor" is being read — it is pinned to the job title stated in the petition. If the petition defined the field too narrowly, the fix may be to re-frame the field consistently across the whole record, not to find more judging.