EB-1A for open-source maintainers

Maintainers are an odd case. The evidence that your work matters is unusually public and unusually verifiable, and the evidence categories built around employers, journals and prizes are often empty. The regulation asks for three of ten, so the empty ones matter less than people fear.

Original contributions: adoption is the argument

This is where maintainer work is strongest and most often underdocumented. The criterion asks for "original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field", and the guidance separates the two halves: first whether the contribution is original, then whether it is of major significance.

"Examples of relevant evidence include, but are not limited to: Published materials about the significance of the person's original work; Testimonials, letters, and affidavits about the person's original work; Documentation that the person's original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; and Patents or licenses deriving from the person's work or evidence of commercial use of the person's work." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2

The guidance is equally clear about what does not settle it: "Evidence that the person'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."

For a maintainer the significance argument has to be built out of adoption, and adoption has to be documented rather than asserted. Named organisations that depend on the project, evidence of the scale of use, statements from engineers at other organisations about what changed for them when they adopted it, and the technical account of what problem the work solved. Original contributions of major significance covers the standard.

The commonest failure is a petition that proves the project is popular and never explains what the person originated within it. Popularity is the organisation's; originality is yours, and the record has to separate them.

Leading or critical role

The guidance is unusually accommodating here, and the accommodation matters for people whose title is nothing:

"A supporting role may be considered critical if the person's performance in the role is (or was) important. It is not the title of the person's role, but rather the person's performance in the role that determines whether the role is (or was) critical." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2

That is the sentence to build on. Maintainer, core contributor, release manager, steering committee member: none of these are corporate titles, and the guidance says the title is not what decides it.

The second half of the criterion is harder. The organisation or establishment must have a distinguished reputation, and the guidance says "The relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor but is considered together with other information", with relevant factors including "the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage."

For a project rather than a company, that means documenting the project as an entity: who governs it, who depends on it, what coverage it has, what funding or foundation backing it has. Leading or critical role covers the criterion generally.

Judging

The examples the guidance gives are venue-based rather than employer-based, which is good news:

"Peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the person to do the review, accompanied by proof that the review was actually completed; Peer review of abstracts or papers submitted for presentation at scholarly conferences in the respective field; Serving as a member of a Ph.D. dissertation committee that makes the final judgment as to whether a candidate's body of work satisfies the requirements for a doctoral degree, as evidenced by departmental records; and Peer reviewer for government research funding programs." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2

Technical conferences in software recruit reviewers from industry, and reviewing for one produces exactly the artefacts the guidance describes. This is the criterion most maintainers can add deliberately within a year. Getting judging experience and finding judging opportunities cover the route.

Whether reviewing contributions to your own project counts is a different and much weaker argument, and not one to build on.

Authorship, and where comparable evidence comes in

The scholarly articles criterion is not academia-only. The guidance's examples include "Published conference presentations at nationally or internationally recognized conferences", and many software conferences publish proceedings.

Where the criterion genuinely does not fit, the regulations provide an alternative, and the guidance gives an example aimed squarely at industry:

"For instance, if the publication of scholarly articles is not readily applicable to a person whose occupation is in an industry rather than academia, a petitioner might demonstrate that the person's presentation of work at a major trade show is of comparable significance to that criterion." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2

The bar for that argument is specific: a general unsupported assertion that a criterion does not apply is not probative, and the evidence offered has to be truly comparable. Comparable evidence covers how the argument is built and how it fails.

The criteria to stop worrying about

Awards, memberships requiring outstanding achievement, artistic exhibitions and commercial success in the performing arts are often empty for maintainers, and that is fine. The regulation requires three.

The guidance is explicit that absence is not a ground of denial by itself: an officer "may not limit the kind of evidence the officer thinks the person should be able to submit and deny the petition if that particular type of evidence ... is absent, if the person nonetheless submitted other types of evidence that meet the regulatory requirements for the classification."

What does still have to be answered is the second stage. Meeting three criteria is not the case; the final merits determination is where the record is weighed as a whole against sustained acclaim, and Kazarian is where that two-step structure comes from.

EB-1A for software engineers with no PhD covers the employed-engineer version of this problem, and building a profile from scratch covers sequencing.

Which criteria your specific record supports is a legal judgement for your attorney, not a self-assessment.

Sources

All accessed 1 September 2026.

1. 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) and (h)(4), eCFR. The ten criteria and the comparable evidence provision.
2. USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2. The examples and considerations for each criterion, the comparable evidence guidance, and the final merits determination, all quoted verbatim above.
3. USCIS, Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1.

The mapping of open-source artefacts to criteria in this article is practical guidance, not a regulatory standard. Whether a given project, role, or review practice satisfies a criterion is a legal question.

This article is not a substitute for advice from your attorney about your own case.

Frequently asked questions

Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.