Worksheet · Employment Immigration

Recommendation Letter Planning Worksheet (EB-1A and NIW)

Choose writers and give each letter a job, so that every letter proves something the others do not.

By Lincoln Square Law · 8-minute read

🖨 Print this checklist

Letters from experts appear in nearly every EB-1A and national interest waiver petition, and they are among the most misused exhibits in immigration practice. A stack of warm letters from colleagues can make a petition look supported while adding almost nothing to it. USCIS guidance tells officers that letters should not be the cornerstone of an extraordinary ability claim, that general praise is generally not persuasive, and that the relationship between the writer and the candidate matters. This worksheet is for choosing writers and planning what each letter will prove, so that every letter does work the documents cannot do alone.

Planning the set

• Assign each letter one criterion, contribution, or Dhanasar prong.
• Combine independent writers with writers who know the work firsthand.
• Prefer a few specific letters to many general ones.

Scoring each writer

• Relationship to the candidate: employment, funding, co-authorship, or personal tie.
• Own standing in the field, with a biography or CV.
• Direct knowledge of specific work the writer used, cited, or adopted.
• Exhibits in the record that support what the writer will say.
• Availability to deliver a signed letter on time.

What each letter contains

• How the writer came to know the candidate’s work.
• The specific contribution and what it changed in the field.
• References to specific exhibits in the record.
• The relationship to the candidate, stated plainly.

Before filing

• Every factual statement is backed by an exhibit.
• No letter repeats the wording of another or of the petition.
• Signed, dated, on letterhead, with contact details.
• Certified translation of any letter in another language.

What the officer does with a letter

The USCIS Policy Manual explains how letters are weighed in extraordinary ability cases. Letters of support are not without weight, but statements in them should be corroborated by documentary evidence in the record. Letters should explain in specific terms why the writer believes the candidate is of the required caliber. Letters that repeat the regulatory definitions, or that make general and expansive statements about the candidate, are generally not persuasive. The officer also considers the relationship or affiliation between the writer and the candidate.

Precedent points the same way. An officer may give less weight to expert opinion that is not in accord with other information in the record or is in any way questionable (Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm’r 1988)). In the first appellate opinion in Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009), the letters were discounted as vague, solicited letters from local colleagues. For national interest waivers, the January 2025 USCIS guidance (Policy Alert PA-2025-03) gives meaningful weight to letters from government or quasi-governmental entities with relevant expertise, and cautions that opinion unsupported by documentary evidence cannot replace it.

Two kinds of writers

Writers fall into two groups. Dependent writers know the candidate directly: supervisors, collaborators, co-authors, and mentors. They can describe the candidate’s role in specific work in detail, which is valuable when the record needs to explain who did what. Independent writers know the candidate’s work only through its influence on their own work or on the field. Their letters are usually more persuasive on the ultimate question, because recognition by people with no personal stake is the kind of acclaim the petition must prove.

Most strong petitions use both. Dependent writers establish the facts of the contribution, and independent writers establish its significance beyond the candidate’s own circle. The relationship should be stated plainly in every letter. An undisclosed connection that the officer discovers undermines more than one letter.

Scoring candidate writers

For each possible writer, record the following and score each factor high, medium, or low:

• Independence. Whether the writer has any employment, funding, co-authorship, or personal tie to the candidate, and if so, what it is.
• Standing. The writer’s own position and recognition in the field, which will be shown by a short biography or curriculum vitae attached to the letter.
• Firsthand knowledge. Whether the writer used, cited, adopted, reviewed, or otherwise engaged with a specific piece of the candidate’s work.
• Coverage. Which criterion, contribution, or Dhanasar prong the letter will support that no other letter supports.
• Corroboration. Which exhibits in the record will prove what the writer says.
• Reliability. Whether the writer can deliver a signed letter in time for the filing plan.

A writer who scores high on standing but low on firsthand knowledge usually adds little. The strongest candidates can say what the candidate’s work changed in their own work, and can point to where that change appears in the record.

Planning coverage

Once the writers are chosen, assign each letter a job. In an EB-1A case, one letter might address a specific original contribution and its adoption by others, another might explain the significance of a leading role at a distinguished organization, and a third might place the candidate’s work within the field from an independent vantage point. In a national interest waiver case, letters should connect to the endeavor as defined in the petition, and they should use the same description of the endeavor that the petition uses. Two letters making the same general point add less than one letter making it specifically.

Special situations

Some fields and some petitions call for different writers.

• Government and institutional writers. In a national interest waiver case, a letter from a federal, state, or local agency, or a quasi-governmental body, that explains how the candidate’s endeavor serves its mission can carry real weight under the 2025 guidance. The letter should come from someone with authority to speak for the agency on the subject.
• Founders and business endeavors. Customers, investors, partners, and industry bodies can speak to adoption, market validation, and progress in ways academics cannot. Their letters should be paired with contracts, investment documents, or usage data.
• Small or specialized fields. Where nearly every expert has some connection to the candidate, independence may be relative. Choose writers whose connection is the most distant available, disclose it, and rely more heavily on documentary evidence of influence, such as independent citation or adoption.
• Writers abroad. Recognition outside the candidate’s home country or institution can help show that acclaim is national or international, but only if the writer can describe the work specifically.

Drafting without templates

Each writer should receive the candidate’s curriculum vitae, the relevant exhibits, and a short note on the point the letter is meant to address. The letter itself should be in the writer’s own words, describing how the writer came to know the work, what it is, why it matters, and what evidence supports the writer’s view. Letters that share phrasing with one another or with the petition letter suggest that someone other than the writers drafted them, which weakens every letter in the set. Each letter should be signed and dated on letterhead where available, with contact details, and any letter in another language needs a complete certified English translation (8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)).

Timing the requests

Ask early. Senior writers are busy, and a rushed letter is usually a general one. Give each writer the materials several weeks before the letter is needed, follow up once, and have a replacement in mind for any writer who may not deliver. Letters should be current when filed, and a letter that refers to the candidate’s work as it stood years ago may undercut the claim that acclaim is sustained.

Final review

Before filing, read the letters against the record. Every factual statement in a letter should be supported by an exhibit, every letter should have a distinct job, and the relationships should be disclosed. Remove letters that add nothing new. A petition with a few specific, corroborated letters is stronger than one with many general ones, and it is easier for the officer to read.